Researchers at the Hebrew University have developed a new approach that may lead to the development of a drug * An application company registered a patent for the discovery
Researchers at the Hebrew University have developed a new approach that may help treat the rapid spread of Alzheimer's disease. The article describing the research was recently selected as the article of the week by the prestigious journal Biological Chemistry and was published as the cover story. The approach developed on the basis of the research findings and which may lead to the development of a drug was registered as a patent by the application, the research development company of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, which offers the development rights under license.
This research was the last step in the doctoral thesis of Dr. Erez Podoli, until recently a doctoral student in the laboratory of Prof. Oded Livna and Prof. Hermona Sorek from the Hebrew University. The research was conducted in collaboration with Dr. Debi Shalu and Dr. Esther Bennett from the Silverman Institute of Life Sciences at the Hebrew University, Hervey Wilgus from the Pharmaathan company, as well as Dr. Eleanor Ben-Assayg and research student Shani Shanar-Srafati from the Sourasky Medical Center Bat "A.
Alzheimer's is a degenerative disease of the brain, which leads to a gradual process of memory loss, confusion and physical exhaustion. A significant percentage of the Alzheimer's patient population suffers from a particularly rapid spread of the disease.
In a study carried out at the Silverman Institute of Life Sciences, the researchers solved the mystery that has occupied scientists for a long time - why people who carry the BChE-K mutant gene are prone to a faster spread of Alzheimer's disease compared to people who carry the normal version of the gene (BChE). The gene carrying this mutation appears in 20 percent of the Israeli population.
Alzheimer's disease is characterized by low levels of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine. The protein produced from the mutant gene breaks down acetylcholine at a slower rate compared to the normal gene. So theoretically, people who carry the mutant gene should be more protected than others from the devastating effects of the disease. The carriers of the mutant gene do indeed show a delay in the development of the disease, but when the disease finally breaks out in them, it progresses at a faster rate and does not respond to medication. The carriers of the mutant gene are exposed to a higher risk of rapid progression of the disease.
The reason for this unusual condition has been a mystery to scientists until now, but the current study proved that the mutant protein failed to protect against the toxic brain deposits (plaques) that form in Alzheimer's disease. From the research conclusions it follows that the normal protein, which can be obtained from the protein of transgenic goats from the American company Pharmathene, may be suitable for the development of a new drug to delay the progression of the disease.
10 תגובות
Scary:
No one forbade you to hold your opinion.
All the details I mentioned were written in the article.
You have the right to define any collection of details (including the collection of all the details that exist) as "poor" but I suggest that you think about the matter and give yourself an account of why you chose to hold your opinion. Is it because this is the opinion you expressed earlier (even before I drew your attention to the details that your question in the previous response indicates that you did not notice their existence in the article) or because the details really seem meager to you?
And despite your arguments, I will allow myself to hold my own
Just because response 4 had no information doesn't mean you have to stoop to his level
Scary:
The many interesting details that are written in the article are written in the article, so I didn't think there was any point in repeating them.
Since I see some people are having trouble, I'll point them out anyway:
On the "administrative" side (which is also important) it says that the article was chosen as the article of the week in a prestigious newspaper (probably because there is nothing in it) and that a patent was filed for the approach described in it (probably because it is an uninteresting approach that does not contain any inventive innovation).
On the content side - it says exactly:
1. What were the assumptions that prevailed before the research
2. What was tested,
3. How it affected the update of assumptions
4. And what are the operative steps that can be taken based on the updated assumptions to produce a cure for the disease.
I'm sorry that you were disappointed with response 5 and did not find it appropriate to refer to response 4 in relation to which it was written.
Response 4 did not include any information and response 5 at least you can learn some arithmetic.
To Michael Roschild:
It's a shame you didn't specify what "many and interesting details" are in the article.
And I have no problem with having credits as I already wrote but why not write at the end
It's a shame that you just respond directly and are not interested in people's response for another minute or two.
By the way, a disappointing and childish answer "0*100=0"
Lachna Sabat:
1. How does the title match what is being said? The article talks about the disease itself and the different genes that characterize the disease in different ways, and only one line is written about the fact that maybe with the help of the gene it is possible to develop a medicine to push the end of the patients. There is no treatment here, just a theory that someone developed.
2. As I already wrote, I have no problem with credits, but why put them as a whole paragraph and not at the end of the article? I respect those who invested their time and energy in developing this theory, but I don't really care what their name is, just like the credits at the end of a movie, do you want the movie to stop in the middle and credits appear? I do not think so.
0 * 100 = 0
Reinforces the words of "scary".
The letters in Hebrew are disappointing.
May I defend this time:
1. The title matches what is said in the article, which is probably published in the university's publications and the website simply publishes it as it is.
2. I have already seen many scientific articles where the credits given fill quite a lot of space from the article itself. This is a matter at the discretion of the authors of the article and it is legitimate.
Hanan Sabat
http://WWW.EURA.ORG.IL
Scary:
First of all, I think there are many interesting details in the article.
Besides, what exactly do you expect about the credit? Just a list of names involved with very few linking words - that's all that appears here. What would you leave out?
I don't like to write a review but for this article I simply have to
A. I understand that credit should be given to those who worked on the research, but a whole paragraph within the article?
Why can't you put their names at the end, I thought the purpose of the article was to talk about Alzeihammer and not about people who need credit
B. The article itself is very sparse on details. About one line talks about the theoretical treatment.
In short, I'm quite disappointed after the big title.
And I've already noticed it several times on the site. You often put exaggerated headlines and I know that part of the point is to attract the reader to the article, but sometimes like this time it is an annoying and disappointing experience on the part of the reader