Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
• Has potential to help geneticists investigate vital issues such as antibacterial resistance • Will untangle the genetic components shared due to common ancestry from the ones shared due to evolution • The work is result of a four-year international collaboration. Aston University has worked with international partners to develop a software package to help scientists answer key questions about genetic factors associated with shared characteristics among different species. Called CALANGO (comparative analysis with annotation-based genomic components), it has the potential to help geneticists investigate vital issues such as antibacterial resistance and improvement of agricultural crops. This work CALANGO: a phylogeny-aware comparative genomics tool for discovering quantitative genotype-phenotype associations across species has been published in the journal Patterns. It is the result of a four year collaboration between Aston University, the Federal University of Minas Gerais in Brazil and other partners in Brazil, Norway and the US. Similarities between species may arise either from shared ancestry (homology) or from shared evolutionary pressures (convergent evolution). For example, ravens, pigeons and bats can all fly, but the first two are birds whereas bats are mammals. This means that the biology of flight in ravens and pigeons is likely to share genetic aspects due to their common ancestry. Both species are able to fly nowadays because their last common ancestor – an ancestor bird - was also a flying organism. In contrast, bats have the ability to fly via potentially different genes than the ones in birds, since the last common ancestor of birds and mammals was not a flying animal. Untangling the genetic components shared due to common ancestry from the ones shared due to common evolutionary pressures requires sophisticated statistical models that take common ancestry into account. So far, this has been an obstacle for scientists who want to understand the emergence of complex traits across different species, mainly due to the lack of proper frameworks to investigate these associations. The new software has been designed to effectively incorporate vast amounts of genomic, evolutionary and functional annotation data to explore the genetic mechanisms which underly similar characteristics between different species sharing common ancestors. Although the statistical models used in the tool are not new, it is the first time they have been combined to extract novel biological insights from genomic data. The technique has the potential to be applied to many different areas of research, allowing scientists to analyse massive amounts of open-source genetic data belonging to thousands of organisms in more depth. Dr Felipe Campelo from the Department of Computer Science in the College of Engineering and Physical Sciences at Aston University, said: “There are many exciting examples of how this tool can be applied to solve major problems facing us today. These include exploring the co-evolution of bacteria and bacteriophages and unveiling factors associated with plant size, with direct implications for both agriculture and ecology.” “Further potential applications include supporting the investigation of bacterial resistance to antibiotics, and of the yield of plant and animal species of economic importance.” The corresponding author of the study, Dr Francisco Pereira Lobo from the Department of Genetics, Ecology and Evolution at the Federal University of Minas Gerais in Brazil, said: “Most genetic and phenotypic variations occur between different species, rather than within them. Our newly developed tool allows the generation of testable hypotheses about genotype-phenotype associations across multiple species that enable the prioritisation of targets for later experimental characterization.” For more details about studying computer since at Aston University visit https://www.aston.ac.uk/eps/informatics-and-digital-engineering/computer-science
Society matters LIVE: Lab made meat on the menu?
• Research at Aston University focuses on both creating lab-based meat and its psychological acceptance • Dr Eirini Theodosiou and Dr Jason Thomas will be speaking at April’s Society matters LIVE event • Lab made meat on the menu? will take place at Cafe Artum in Hockley Social Club on Thursday 27 April. Lab made meat will be the topic of the latest Society matters LIVE event from Aston University at Café Artum at Birmingham’s Hockley Social Club on Thursday 27 April. Dr Eirini Theodosiou and Dr Jason Thomas at Aston University are conducting research into lab-made or cultivated meat, both exploring the creation of the meat and the psychological impact of the product. Dr Eirini Theodosiou, senior lecturer in the School of lnfrastructure and Sustainable Engineering, focuses on ways to produce enough cell mass to create the meat. Meanwhile Dr Jason Thomas’ work explores the psychology behind supporting people to accept lab-made food. The research comes as current trends indicate that demand for animal-based foods will increase by 70% in 2050 to feed the predicted 9.8 billion people. Dr Theodosiou said: “Cultivated or lab grown meat offers a safer, more sustainable and animal cruelty-free alternative for consumers. It is a very young industry trying to replace traditional meat production methods however, with 800 million people worldwide suffering from hunger and malnutrition, it is a viable option.” “In addition, the livestock industry is responsible for 12-18% of the total greenhouse gas emissions and is a cause of deforestation. Increased meat production and factory farming are the topmost likely causes of the next pandemic due to the extensive use of antibiotics and increasing emergence of zoonotic diseases.” Dr Thomas said: “It is a relatively new food technology, and much work still needs to be done to make it affordable and on a massive scale. We are interested in finding out what factors can influence consumer purchase of and consumption of lab-made meat.” The event is organised by Aston University and Café Artum at Hockley Social Club as part of the Society matters LIVE series. Free tickets are available at https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/lab-made-meat-on-the-menu-tickets-464161147487?aff=ebdsoporgprofile
• Researchers in the School of Biosciences partner with preclinical-stage biotechnology start-up company to develop drugs for fibrotic diseases • Professor Martin Griffin and team develop TG2 inhibitors to help treat a serious chronic lung disease called idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. • Isterian Biotech is part of Cambrian BioPharma who have been working with Aston University since 2019. Aston University scientists are working with start-up company, Isterian Biotech, part of Cambrian BioPharma, to develop novel drugs to treat fibrotic diseases such as lung disease. The focus of preclinical-stage biotechnology company Isterian Biotech is on developing novel drugs to stop or reverse the pathological accumulation of crosslinked proteins commonly observed in all major organs with age. As we age a chronic increase of crosslinked proteins occurs in the extracellular matrix (ECM), that surround, support, and give structure to the cells and tissues in the body. These crosslinked proteins are difficult for the body to degrade and over time can make organs stiff and dysfunctional, ultimately resulting in fibrosis. Reversing the accumulation of these pathological crosslinks will greatly contribute to reducing fibrosis. The start-up is working to develop small molecule inhibitors of transglutaminase 2 also known as TG2, which is one of the major crosslinking enzymes in the human body, that becomes more active during ageing - thus resulting in fibrotic diseases such as a type of lung disease known as idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Isterian President and Chairman of the Board, Georg C Terstappen, PhD said: "Isterian's strategy of combining rational drug design with efficient multiparametric profiling of synthesized small molecules has been both impressive and highly productive. Notably, for one of our highly potent and selective TG2 inhibitors, we have recently demonstrated efficacy in a mouse model of lung fibrosis for the first time. "Using this state-of-the-art approach to drug discovery combined with an impressive team gives us great confidence in the future of this novel company." IPF is a progressive, irreversible disease that is characterized by pathological crosslinking of extracellular matrix (ECM) proteins (a large network of proteins and other molecules that surround, support, and give structure to the cells and tissues in the body) leading to excessive deposition of collagen. This means that in IPF scar tissue or fibrosis builds up around the air sacs (alveoli) in the lungs and reduces the ability to transfer oxygen that is breathed into the blood, resulting in severe restriction of lung capacity and function. IPF is the most common form of pulmonary fibrosis. The disease affects between 200,000 and 300,000 people globally. Statistics from the charity Action for Pulmonary Fibrosis suggest there are about 30,000 people living with IPF in the UK with an estimated 6,000 new cases of the condition each year. The disease usually develops in people aged 70 and older and is more common in men. But it can occur in younger individuals, particularly if there is a family history of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. The company was founded by capitalizing on over 35 years of scientific research from the laboratory of Professor Martin Griffin and his team Dr Dan Rathbone and Dr Vivian Wang at Aston University. Their work with small molecule inhibitors selective for TG2 has demonstrated reduction of fibrosis in multiple organs in a number of animal models. In 2019, Aston University partnered with Cambrian to form Isterian Biotech with a mission to develop safe and effective TG2 inhibitors to treat Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), a devastating fibrotic disease of the lung. Professor Martin Griffin, Biosciences Research Group, Aston University said: “We are delighted to continue our work with Isterian researching how we can further develop TG2 inhibitors to help tackle this awful disease.” CEO of Cambrian BioPharma, James Peyer, commented: "As Cambrian continues on its mission to build medicines that will redefine healthcare in the 21st century, we are very thankful to find brilliant scientists such as Martin and his team that are willing to break the mold. Isterian and its work to reduce fibrosis are a perfect fit alongside the other pipeline companies our team has announced in 2022." The company's current pipeline includes an advanced preclinical-stage TG2 inhibitor for inhaled administration and several structurally unrelated back-up compounds for the treatment of IPF. For more information about the School of Biosciences at Aston University, please visit our website.
Expert Opinion: Real Fur? It’s Just Not in Vogue Anymore!
Back in 1994, animal rights organization PETA launched what would become one of the most iconic campaigns of the decade – and beyond. “I’d rather go naked than wear fur,” sparked a slew of headlines internationally and won support from celebrities such as Naomi Campbell, Gillian Anderson, Pamela Anderson, and others; many of whom agreed to pose nude or semi-naked in support of the anti-fur movement. Three decades on, in February 2020, PETA announced it was retiring the campaign, saying it was “no longer necessary” and citing the “demise of the trade.” Evidence suggests they are right. Since the early noughties, the use of fur among the world’s foremost luxury fashion houses has steadily declined. The production of mink and other pelts–an industry valued at $1.8 billion in the late 80s–has declined in America by around 45 percent in the last 20 years, according to the Department of Agriculture. Meanwhile, high-end fashion brands like Gucci, Vivienne Westwood, and Stella McCartney have pledged to go fur-free, with Fendi, Saint Laurent, and others set to follow suit in 2022. Fur has never been less fashionable. But can activism alone claim victory in the fight for more ethical fashion practices? Emory’s Giacomo Negro, professor of Organization & Management and professor of sociology (by courtesy), has released new research that suggests another major factor played a key role in the process that led to the abandonment of fur; and it’s none other than perennial style bible, Vogue. When Vogue Speaks, People Listen We know that the use of fur has been dropping off steadily on the supply side, on the part of producers and manufacturers themselves, in the last two decades. What we didn’t know was how much of this was down to pressure from PETA and other highly-visible activism. Or whether there might be other forces at play–industry intermediaries that have a gatekeeping function, such as the fashion press, exerting a more subtle but just as powerful influence on the producers of fur. - Giacomo Negro, professor of Organization & Management Hypothesizing this to be the case, Negro teamed up with INSEAD’s Frederic Godart and Greta Hsu of the University of California. First off, they had to determine the most important and global of fashion’s gatekeepers. “There are other publications, but Vogue is undoubtedly a significant force in fashion. The magazine has long occupied a unique position that is neither an insider nor an outsider in the sense that its editors are intimately connected to the top designers and decision-makers in the industry; simultaneously, it’s an external, independent publication with global reach and singularly powerful influence on fashion’s views and tastes.” If Vogue were to take a certain view of the use of fur in clothing over time, would fashion houses take note and follow suit, the researchers wondered? To test this, Negro et al put together a largescale dataset integrating data from more than 18 years of Vogue’s runway reports: features covering fashion shows in Paris, Milan, London, and New York between Spring 2000 and Fall 2018. The set included 670 fashion houses hosting at least two runway shows in this period, focusing on women’s prêt-à-porter designs. Next, the researchers ran an analysis across the texts published by Vogue after each show. They coded words relating to the moral and ethical dimensions of fur use. “When Vogue publishes a report, you don’t just get a review of the collections,” says Negro. “You also get the magazine’s opinion and appraisal of the clothing.” Fur Ethics and the Decline of a Centuries-Old Industry Parsing the attention to fur ethics expressed in these reports and looking at the frequency of the appearance of fur on runways over time, he and his colleagues found something striking: a clear, quantitative correlation between the magazine’s coverage of fur ethics and a drop off in its use by fashion houses, starting in 2011. “From around 2009, Vogue starts referencing the ethical and social concerns around fur and this continues through to 2014. In 2011, you begin to see a steady decline that follows in the use and appearance of fur on catwalks in the major fashion capitals of the world.” But could this simply be credited to an increase in activism at the same time? Unlikely, says Negro. He and his colleagues also looked at data on media coverage of anti-fur events in France, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the U.S. and failed to establish any meaningful correlation with Vogue’s editorial position over the same period. “What seems most plausible is that as an influential industry gatekeeper, Vogue was driving a change in views on fur ethics and fur use, alongside its own changing position on the ethics of fur,” says Negro. And it’s interesting to remember that fashion, like other creative industries, tends to operate in accordance with its own set of rules and its ‘artistic freedom.’ When activists targeted Jean Paul Gaultier’s Fall Show of 2009, he simply announced that he loved fur and would continue using it. However, when Vogue starts weighing in with an opinion, that’s when designers start following suit. - Giacomo Negro, professor of Organization & Management Which isn’t to say that activism did not have a critical role, he adds. In leading and reshaping the conversation around fur over the last three decades, PETA and others have brought the key issues to the attention of the world’s media like no other, says Godart: “Our findings also suggest that specific forms of anti-fur activism such as advertising campaigns, and legal maneuvers, became effective in influencing fashion houses’ decisions to move away from fur when amplified by Vogue’s references to moral concerns around fur use.” For any business or industry looking to navigate changing perceptions, tastes, or sentiments, gatekeeper entities–intermediaries like experts, media publications, and others–can provide useful signals that can help strategic decision-making, say Negro, Godart, and Hsu. Though in the age of social media, it may become that much more difficult to distinguish signals from noise. Proactive organizations might do well to identify and engage with social movements and gatekeepers ahead of change, they say, rather than bide their time until pressure forces their hand. Interested in learning more? Then let us help with your questions or coverage. Giacomo Negro is a professor of Organization & Management and Professor of Sociology at the Goizueta Business School at Emory University. Simply click on his icon now to connect and arrange an interview.
Aston University and ADInstruments Ltd (ADI) enter 24-month knowledge transfer partnership to develop ground-breaking animal telemetry system World-leading expertise in neuroscience to help bring game-changing system to market Outcomes of KTP will feed directly into the product hardware and software development, ensuring technological advantage for ADI. Aston University has teamed up with research software experts ADInstruments Ltd (ADI) through a knowledge transfer partnership to develop a revolutionary dual-function wireless telemetry system for neuroscience research that is set to transform how implanted biosensors are used for data generation in animals. Telemetry is the automatic recording and transmission of data from remote or inaccessible sources to an IT system in a different location for monitoring and analysis. ADI has an established reputation for developing, supplying and supporting its customers in specific areas of life science research, particularly in cardiovascular science. The company has recently acquired Kaha Sciences, which has developed ground-breaking telemetry technology that can be used to measure neuroscience-relevant signals in free-moving animals for research. The company is looking to use the KTP to harness the world-leading expertise of Aston University to build their reputation in neuroscience. Mark de Reus, head of support at ADInstruments, said: “The evidence-base of research papers, training and support materials from Aston University will be invaluable in improving the product design, identifying development opportunities and embedding a culture of neuroscience within the company.” A knowledge transfer partnership (KTP) is a three-way collaboration between a business, an academic partner and a highly qualified graduate, known as a KTP associate. The UK-wide programme helps businesses to improve their competitiveness and productivity through the better use of knowledge, technology and skills. Aston University is the leading KTP provider within the Midlands. The Aston University team features Professor Gavin Woodhall and Dr Stuart Greenhill from its Pharmacy School’s Pharmacology and Translational Neuroscience Research Group. Professor Woodhall is co-director of the Institute of Health and Neurodevelopment (IHN) and a neuroscientist who studies epilepsy and schizophrenia in rodent models of disease. Dr Stuart Greenhill is a member of IHN and senior lecturer in neuroscience, with a longstanding track record in developing and deploying novel and difficult mechanisms of recording from brain tissue both in vivo and in vitro. Dr Stuart Greenhill said: “It is a privilege to be involved in the development of this important technology, which will be invaluable to thousands of research groups across the globe, and we are delighted to be able to help the product team realise the potential of this device.”
The EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement is costly, what does the UK need to do? | Aston Angle
As far as trade is concerned, the EU exit has been rather costly to the UK. At the Centre for Business Prosperity, we have been tracking the performance of UK trade in recent years. The UK’s trade dropped sharply during COVID. Like other nations, this was due to the global recession and supply chain disruptions. However, the UK failed to recover and enjoy the boom, despite the tariff-free terms of trade in goods set out in the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA). The UK now trades less with the EU, its largest trading partner, than in 2019. During the same period, Germany and the Netherlands grew trade with the EU by nearly a quarter, and US trade with the EU has also grown considerably. Reports suggest, including those from the British Chambers of Commerce, that exporting to the EU has become much more costly and in some cases, unviable. It appears that the “certainty” provided by the TCA has not reversed the declining trend of the UK-EU trade so far. Our new paper for the Enterprise Research Centre (ERC) has found that UK exports experienced a large, negative, statistically significant decline in 2021 at the end of the transition after the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) was put into force. We estimate that this amounts to a 22% reduction in exports to the EU and a 26% reduction in imports from the EU over the first half of 2021, relative to the counterfactual scenario of the UK remaining in the EU. How did this happen? After all, the TCA ensures that goods moving between the UK and the EU have no tariffs or quotas, so long as the rules of origin are complied with. Rules of origin help you work out where your goods originate from and which goods are covered in trade agreements. Our research found that non-tariff measures (NTMs) were responsible for the adverse TCA effect on UK trade with the EU and that the magnitude of loss was significant. It was equivalent to a reduction of £12.4 billion in UK exports over the first six months period of 2021. This equals 16% of UK total exports in the first half of 2019 and 70% of the documented total reduction in the EU exports in the same period. A number of factors can be attributed to the decline of UK exports to the EU. In particular, the increased trade frictions that occurred mainly due to sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) and technical barriers to trade (TBT) as a result of entering the TCA. Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) measures refer to the EU controls to protect animal, plant or public health. And technical barriers to trade (TBT) refers to mandatory technical regulations and voluntary standards that define specific characteristics that a product should have, such as its size, shape, design, labelling/marking/packaging, functionality or performance. On average, for the first six months of 2021, a 1% increase in SPS resulted in a 13–15% reduction in exports to the EU, most notably in the food and drink, wood and chemicals sectors. Furthermore, a 1% increase in TBT led to a 2–3% reduction in exports, especially in metals, equipment, machines and miscellaneous industrial products. What next? Since the post-Brexit dysfunctions are now diagnosed, in theory we could move on. The UK can directly tackle the trade challenges, so long as other things, such as politics, do not stand in the way. Fundamentally, what needs to happen is the removal or relief of the root causes coded by the TCA – the trade barriers newly erected. This is a key task; it is challenging but not impossible. Trade frictions due to the SPS measures are an acute problem of Brexit. Reducing some of the non-tariff measures between the EU-UK would help by exploring other mechanisms such as equivalent SPS measures or other ways to reduce businesses burden to a minimum. The technical barriers to trade are more complicated and challenging and they could potentially cause significant damage to the UK economy. Despite its limitation, maintaining and broadening the established arrangements of the current TCA provision, through some form of mutual recognition of specific practices or international regulations for selected sectors, should be the ambition of UK government to help ease the TBT trade barriers. Future EU-UK co-operation is critical and mutually beneficial but requires political will and strong leadership. In the short and medium term, supporting firms should be the priority, especially small- and medium-sized firms that are productive enough to have exported to the EU in the past, but now face hurdles to continue exporting. These firms tend to be limited on resource but have the infrastructure and ambition to internationalise. Targeted support for specific challenges could be also fruitful. The UK Department for International Trade Export Support Service, the British Chambers of Commerce and local growth hubs have the expertise and experience to help firms export. Therefore, resources should be made available to allow for customised and responsive support with exports, as well as taking advantage of technologies that can identify and reach businesses who require support. Provision should also be made to collect feedback on the quality of the support provided, to enable further improvement. Helping businesses continue to access EU markets, while enabling the economy to take advantage of welfare-enhancing benefits from trade, remains imperative. Given the economic benefits of the roll-out, the new free trade agreements are expected to be limited and effective only in the long term. UK domestic policies should be the focus to improve the competitiveness of exporters and their ecosystem. By Professor Jun Du Director of the Centre for Business Prosperity Professor of Economics, Finance and Entrepreneurship, Aston Business School Lecturer in Politics and International Relations School of Social Science and Humanities Dr Oleksandr Shepotylo Senior Lecturer, Economics, Finance and Entrepreneurship, Aston Business School
Music in nature: from birds and cicadas to whales
When Henry Wadsworth Longfellow described music as the “universal language of mankind,” he was only partially right. Why? Because the roots of music trace all the way back to nature, specifically the animal kingdom, which uses it to communicate or simply commune. Author Michael Spitzer goes even further, describing music as our “umbilical cord” to Mother Nature, noting, “The very simple answer to where music begins is in animals, because birds sing and whales sing.” NJIT’s David Rothenberg knows this first-hand, as a composer and jazz clarinetist who jams with fish large and small and hordes of whirring cicadas – insects that spark both his heart and brain. As he explains, “Playing along with these guys is like joining into a fantastic trove with millions of singers.” As a researcher who investigates the musicality of animals, Rothenberg speaks authoritatively and animatedly about the music of fish, birds and yes, cicadas, identifying three distinct sounds they make during their massive mating call every 17 years. In short, if you want to know what makes nature sing, why and how, he’s your source. To interview him, simply click on the button below.
Sweeteners may be linked to increased cancer risk – new research
Sweeteners have long been suggested to be bad for our health. Studies have linked consuming too many sweeteners with conditions such as obesity, type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. But links with cancer have been less certain. An artificial sweetener, called cyclamate, that was sold in the US in the 1970s was shown to increase bladder cancer in rats. However, human physiology is very different from rats, and observational studies failed to find a link between the sweetener and cancer risk in humans. Despite this, the media continued to report a link between sweeteners and cancer. But now, a study published in PLOS Medicine which looked at over 100,000 people, has shown that those who consume high levels of some sweeteners have a small increase in their risk of developing certain types of cancer. To assess their intake of artificial sweeteners, the researchers asked the participants to keep a food diary. Around half of the participants were followed for more than eight years. The study reported that aspartame and acesulfame K, in particular, were associated with increased cancer risk – especially breast and obesity-related cancers, such as colorectal, stomach and prostate cancers. This suggests that removing some types of sweeteners from your diet may reduce the risk of cancer. Cancer risk Many common foods contain sweeteners. These food additives mimic the effect of sugar on our taste receptors, providing intense sweetness with no or very few calories. Some sweeteners occur naturally (such as stevia or yacon syrup). Others, such as aspartame, are artificial. Although they have few or no calories, sweeteners still have an effect on our health. For example, aspartame turns into formaldehyde (a known carcinogen) when the body digests it. This could potentially see it accumulate in cells and cause them to become cancerous. Our cells are hard-wired to self-destruct when they become cancerous. But aspartame has been shown to “switch off” the genes that tell cancer cells to do this. Other sweeteners, including sucralose and saccharin, have also been shown to damage DNA, which can lead to cancer. But this has only been shown in cells in a dish rather than in a living organism. Sweeteners can also have a profound effect on the bacteria that live in our gut. Changing the bacteria in the gut can impair the immune system, which could mean they no longer identify and remove cancerous cells. But it’s still unclear from these animal and cell-based experiments precisely how sweeteners initiate or support cancerous changes to cells. Many of these experiments would also be difficult to apply to humans because the amount of sweetener was given at much higher doses than a human would ever consume. The results from previous research studies are limited, largely because most studies on this subject have only observed the effect of consuming sweeteners without comparing against a group that hasn’t consumed any sweeteners. A recent systematic review of almost 600,000 participants even concluded there was limited evidence to suggest heavy consumption of artificial sweeteners may increase the risk of certain cancers. A review in the BMJ came to a similar conclusion. Although the findings of this recent study certainly warrant further research, it’s important to acknowledge the study’s limitations. First, food diaries can be unreliable because people aren’t always honest about what they eat or they may forget what they have consumed. Although this study collected food diaries every six months, there’s still a risk people weren’t always accurately recording what they were eating and drinking. Though the researchers partially mitigated this risk by having participants take photos of the food they ate, people still might not have included all the foods they ate. Based on current evidence, it’s generally agreed that using artificial sweeteners is associated with increased body weight – though researchers aren’t quite certain whether sweeteners directly cause this to happen. Although this recent study took people’s body mass index into account, it’s possible that changes in body fat may have contributed to the development of many of these types of cancers – not necessarily the sweeteners themselves. Finally, the risk of developing cancer in those who consumed the highest levels of artificial sweeteners compared with those who consumed the lowest amounts was modest – with only at 13% higher relative risk of developing cancer in the study period. So although people who consumed the highest amounts of sweetener had an increased risk of developing cancer, this was still only slightly higher than those with the lowest intake. While the link between sweetener use and diseases, including cancer, is still controversial, it’s important to note that not all sweeteners are equal. While sweeteners such as aspartame and saccharin may be associated with ill health, not all sweeteners are. Stevia, produced from the Stevia rebaudiana plant, has been reported to be useful in controlling diabetes and body weight, and may also lower blood pressure. The naturally occurring sugar alcohol, xylitol, may also support the immune system and digestion. Both stevia and xylitol have also been shown to protect from tooth decay, possibly because they kill bad oral bacteria. So the important choice may be not the amount of sweetener you eat but the type you use.
ChristianaCare and The Wistar Institute advance partnership with new cancer research strategies
ChristianaCare’s Helen F. Graham Cancer Center & Research Institute is advancing its historic partnership with the Ellen and Ronald Caplan Cancer Center of The Wistar Institute in Philadelphia with three new research projects under way. The new research projects consist of a population health study targeting triple negative breast cancer. Other projects focus on a new therapeutic target for epithelial ovarian cancer, the most lethal gynecologic cancer in the developed world, and the development of “mini organs” derived from stem cells. Targeting triple negative breast cancer Delaware has one of the highest incidence rates of triple-negative breast cancer in the United States. This highly aggressive cancer has few treatment options, because the cells test negative for three known treatment targets – estrogen, progesterone and HER2 protein receptors. Working with patient data from the Graham Cancer Center, researchers are investigating potential contributing factors such as diet, alcohol use and genetic variants among women, and the effects of these on cancer metabolism. The team will also examine spatial relationships between cancer “hot spots”—geographic areas with a higher-than-expected prevalence—and modifiable risk factors. Key resources for the study are blood and tissue samples from the Graham Cancer Center’s Tissue Procurement Center and its statewide High-Risk Family Cancer Registry. The research team will be led by Director of Population Health Research at ChristianaCare Scott Siegel, Ph.D., and Lead Research Scientist Jennifer Sims Mourtada, Ph.D., at the Graham Cancer Center’s Cawley Center for Translational Cancer Research (CTCR). They will join Zachary Schug, Ph.D., at Wistar’s Molecular and Cellular Oncogenesis Program. Researching novel therapy for ovarian cancer The latest study supported by the Graham Cancer Center’s Tissue Procurement Program targets KAT6A expression as a novel therapy for ovarian cancer caused by a specific genetic mutation, called PP2R1A. Epithelial ovarian cancer is the most common form of ovarian cancer and the leading cause of gynecologic cancer deaths in the United States. Chemoresistance to currently available platinum-based drugs like cisplatin represents a major treatment challenge, as more than 50 percent of affected women ultimately relapse and die from this disease. Wistar’s Rugang Zhang, Ph.D., leader of the Immunology, Microenvironment and Metastases Program, is focused on developing novel therapeutics for subtypes of ovarian cancer that currently have no effective therapies and on improving the current standard of care. Dr. Zhang’s previous work suggests that KAT6A signaling plays a critical role in ovarian cancer progression. Targeting this signaling pathway could be an effective strategy for treating ovarian cancer. Working with Dr. Zhang on this project are Graham Cancer Center gynecologic oncologists Mark Cadungog, M.D., director of Robotic Surgery, and Sudeshna Chatterjee-Paer, M.D., and Cawley CTCR’s Stephanie Jean, M.D., director of Gynecologic Oncology Research. Also collaborating with the team is Wistar’s Alessandro Gardini, Ph.D., assistant professor in the Gene Expression & Regulation Program. ‘Mini organs’ offer hope for therapeutics Dr. Sims-Mourtada at the Cawley CTCR will lead a new program to culture organ-specific tissue from stem cells that could change the way diseases are studied and treated. These so called “mini organs” or “organoids” are three-dimensional tissue cultures grown in the lab that replicate the complexity and functions of a specific tissue or organ found in the body. Organoids offer scientists a better model for how drugs and other therapeutics might interact with a patient’s particular type of tumor, opening new avenues for precision medicine. “The ability to grow each patient’s tumor in a three-dimensional organoid along with our capability to create patient-derived xenograft or animal models as part of our PDX core, will allow us to fully capture the effects of genetic as well as gene altering behavioral and environmental influences that are lacking in current research models,” said Dr. Sims-Mourtada. “Our collaboration with Wistar to build these programs raises our clinical platform to the next level for studying new cancer biomarkers and treatments.” Advancing a Pioneering Partnership The Graham Cancer Center made history when it signed a first-of-its-kind agreement in 2011 with The Wistar Institute, pairing a National Cancer Institute, NCI-designated basic research institution with a community cancer center that is also an NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP). “Our partnership with Wistar has attracted national recognition as a model of collaboration that leverages cutting-edge research to benefit cancer prevention and therapy statewide,” says Nicholas J. Petrelli, M.D., Bank of America endowed medical director of ChristianaCare’s Helen F. Graham Cancer Center and Research Institute. “With Wistar, our productive collaborations over the last decade continue to drive discovery research toward clinical trials to benefit patients here at the Graham Cancer Center and in communities everywhere.” “The Graham Center has been an ideal partner in our mission,” said Dario C. Altieri, M.D., Wistar president and CEO and director of the Ellen and Ronald Caplan Cancer Center. “Our scientists at Wistar have access to clinically-annotated primary patient specimens of the highest quality. As the majority of patients at the Graham Cancer Center are treatment naïve, this collaboration affords an opportunity to conduct unique, high impact mechanistic and correlative studies that will ultimately advance important scientific discoveries that hopefully will lead to better cancer therapies.”
Vitamin D2 and D3: what’s the difference and which should you take?
Vitamin D is important for maintaining health, as it has many roles in the human body. But there is more than one form of vitamin D, and recent research suggests that these forms may have different effects. So what are the different types of vitamin D, and is one really more beneficial than the other? Although medical conditions later associated with vitamin D deficiency, such as the bone disease rickets, have been known about since the 17th century, vitamin D itself wasn’t identified until the early 20th century. This discovery led to Adolf Windaus winning the Nobel prize for chemistry in 1928. The vitamin D family actually includes five molecules, with the two most important being vitamin D2 and D3. These molecules are also known as ergocalciferol and cholecalciferol, respectively. While both of these types of vitamin D contribute to our health, they differ in how we get them. Dietary vitamin D2 generally comes from plants, particularly mushrooms and yeast, whereas we get vitamin D3 from animal sources, such as oily fish, liver and eggs. Both forms of vitamin D are also available in dietary supplements. What most people probably don’t know is that most of our vitamin D comes from exposing our skin to sunlight. When our skin is exposed to the sun, ultraviolet rays convert a precursor molecule called 7-dehydrocholesterol into vitamin D3. This important effect of exposure to the sun explains why people living at more extreme latitudes, or people who have darker skin, are more prone to vitamin D deficiency. Melanin, a pigment in the skin, blocks ultraviolet rays from activating 7-dehydrocholesterol, thus limiting D3 production. Wearing clothing or sunscreen has a similar effect. Both vitamins D2 and D3 are essentially inactive until they go through two processes in the body. First, the liver changes their chemical structure to form a molecule known as calcidiol. This is the form in which vitamin D is stored in the body. Calcidiol is then further altered in the kidneys to form calcitriol, the active form of the hormone. It is calcitriol that is responsible for the biological actions of vitamin D, including helping bones to form, metabolising calcium and supporting how our immune system works. Technically, vitamin D isn’t a vitamin at all, but a pro-hormone. This means the body converts it into an active hormone. All hormones have receptors (on bone cells, muscle cells, white blood cells) that they bind to and activate, like a key unlocking a lock. Vitamin D2 has the same affinity for the vitamin D receptor as vitamin D3, meaning neither form is better at binding to its receptor. Different effects on the immune system A recent study found that vitamin D2 and D3 supplementation had different effects on genes important for immune function. These findings are significant, as most previous research has failed to find much difference in the effect of supplementation with either vitamin D2 or D3. Most of the research published to date has suggested that the main difference between vitamin D2 and D3 supplementation is the effect on circulating vitamin D levels in the bloodstream. Studies have repeatedly shown that vitamin D3 is superior at raising levels of vitamin D in the body. These findings were supported by a recent review of the evidence which found that vitamin D3 supplementation increased vitamin D levels in the body better than vitamin D2. But not all studies agree. Very few studies support vitamin D2 supplementation being superior to vitamin D3. One trial showed that vitamin D2 was better at treating immune issues in patients who were on steroid therapy. However, other than increasing vitamin D levels in the body, there is not much evidence that vitamin D3 supplements are better than vitamin D2 supplements. One study found that vitamin D3 improved calcium levels more than vitamin D2. But we need more research to provide definitive answers. So which should I take? Vitamin D deficiency is now more prevalent than ever, with around a billion people worldwide being vitamin D deficient. It is important that people at risk of vitamin D deficiency – older adults, people living in less sunny climates and people with darker skin – take vitamin D supplements. Health professionals recommend that most people take 10 micrograms of vitamin D a day, especially in winter. It would appear that vitamin D3 supplements are the superior option for maintaining vitamin D levels, but short exposure of the skin to the sun, even on a cloudy day, will also help you keep healthy vitamin D levels.