Thursday, January 30, 2014

FOR STANDARDS: Quiz (aka a blog post that had a very witty title before someone suggested that it could be offensive)

 So, Quick made up an imaginary guy and got him shot, and we have to figure out how he died.  I mean, yeah, he got shot so of course he died but WHY.
So Mr. Slow, as he shall now be called, was shot above the 3rd rib on his left side, broke his 8th rib on his right side, and then had the bullet exit above his belly button. Now what really happened depends a little bit on what kind of bullet he was shot with and how fast it was traveling, because those two factors determine if the bullet will ricochet, break a bone and keep going, or remain in the body.  Now if the conditions were right and the bullet ricocheted in Mr. Slow's body, we have the situation on the left. It went through his left lung, and heart, bounced off his rib, and then went through his pancreas, gallbladder and out his belly button, nicking a host of blood vessels and arteries along the way. It should be fairly obvious that damage to almost every vital organ, including his heart which probably stopped on impact and could not pump anymore, was what killed him.  He had no chance of surviving without the function of his heart, and if that hadn't killed him his punctured lung, liver, and pancreas would have, and the internal bleeding would have been overwhelming.  The shooter must have been taller than him, since the bullet traveled downward, and he was standing to Mr. Slow's left.  He wasn't shot directly from above (not laying down) or behind (only went through the frontal plane). He could have been sitting down, or his assailant could have just been pretty tall (unless Mr. Slow was short, we don't know his height).

Other alternatives don't rely on the chance that the bullet bounced off his 8th rib, although that scenario does seem most likely. The other situation would be like the one pictured on the right, a straight path through the body.  When he fell to the right, he could have fractured his rib (we can check that by looking for bullet fragments on his rib: if they're there the bullet bounced, if they're not then he must have fallen on it or been hit).  In this situation, there is a chance that the bullet would travel through the Celiac artery, one of the major arteries in the body. Mr. Slow would have bled out within just a few minutes and died quickly. This theory that he died of major internal bleeding could be verified by checking to see if the artery is intact or not. Another possibility is that the bullet simply went straight through his lung and heart. Although damage to one lung might not have been enough to kill him, a shot straight through his left ventricle would inhibit his heart from pumping blood and kill him in minutes.  Pair that with internal bleeding, and poor Mr. Slow dies.  This can be checked by autopsying his heart and lung to see if they were damaged. My last situation is a little more....glamorous. Mr. Slow is an international spy with a bounty on his head. A sniper takes him out from a perch in a building a couple yards away, and although the bullet doesn't mortally injure him, he used a shrapnel bullet to ensure that Mr. Slow would meet his doom. The bullet bursts inside him, hitting his rib, damaging his heart, severing blood vessels and arteries, and the largest fragment shot out of his body above his belly button. Mr. Slow died of internal bleeding (blood loss). I'd suggest going to the CIA to check this one out...or look for shrapnel.
Hey! This is on my website for standard SP2. Check it out here:
https://sites.google.com/site/michelleshonorsbio/webb-science-practices-standards/2-developing-and-using-models

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

Stem cell question

So while I'm figuring out where this is supposed to go, I'm going to post it here so I don't lose it.


In the movie, they refer to a euthanasia act that that states it's okay for the company to make the clones, so long as they are never sentient, conscious beings. My question is what's the point of making a full body clone as opposed to organs on demand? If currently scientists can 3D print tissue, what's stopping them from making organs or bones or other body parts in just a few days, and distributing them to everyone, not only the rich?  Is that a possibility in real life?

Side note, on his blog I posted it, and deleted it to change something really quick, and reposted it, and now it looks super sketchy and I feel really weird about it. Oh gosh the anxiety.

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

iPSCs

No, it's not the latest software from Apple.
iPSCs are induced pluripotent stem cells, so let's break that down. Basically, by turning on some genes or introducing the proteins made by those genes to adult skin cells, they can be rejuvenated and resemble embryonic cells. This means that these cells are no longer specified, but rather pluripotent, or able to become many different types of cells, mutation-free. Well, sometimes. About half the time, this backfires, and the animals its tested on get cancer. It's still a work in progress, but in the next ten years human testing may begin.
Now, there's something that piqued my curiosity in this article. Alzheimer's disease was mentioned a few times as a disease that these iPSCs could cure. However, the mutation that causes or makes people more prone to Alzheimer's is unknown.  It could be APOEε4 or TREM2, or a variety of other genes, or a combination of all of them. So if they can't isolate the mutation, how are scientists going to use iPSCs to cure it (they said right now they are only dealing with single mutation diseases)? Younger brain cells might be able to cure it, but I had no idea what was going on. So I googled it. Scientists are doing this study on the amyloid-β peptide and oxidative stress, two issues that can be resolved with iPSCs. But it's largely composed of guesswork, and the mechanism is unknown. Okay.
Sorry that was a little off-topic, but it was really curious. Until next time!

Monday, January 20, 2014

FOR STANDARDS: Cancer Paper

So the last two weeks of my biology life have been devoted to writing (and procrastinating) this bear of a paper. Here's the link, but unless you want to read 6 pages of boring, let me give you the basic rundown.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YfunzCm4eShKU773JDjPrKet2Rav3mqiLbhdSpz2KEw/edit?usp=sharing
So there's this gene that's involved in about a quarter of breast cancer cases, called HER2.  It produces this protein, neu, that stimulates cell growth, but when there's too much of it, the cell can go haywire. This extra growth makes the cancer more deadly and painful, so HER2-positive cancer is one of the worst iterations of breast cancer there is.  Basically, there's this drug called Trastuzumab that can mark the cells with HER2 overexpression, and inhibit their growth.  Other treatments consist of vaccines that build up resistance against the peptides created by HER2, and stop growth from getting out of hand.  The downside is that scientists barely understand how HER2 and its peptides work, so developing treatments is difficult.

Well that's all for now! See you!

Hey! This paper is on my website for standards 7 and 8! Check it out here
https://sites.google.com/site/michelleshonorsbio/webb-science-practices-standards/7-engaging-in-argument-from-evidence
https://sites.google.com/site/michelleshonorsbio/webb-science-practices-standards/8-obtaining-evaluating-and-communicating-information