SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the pro-tein-comes-from-amateur-tein-that-has-had-lots-of-practice dept.
New Protein Sequencing Method Could Transform Biological Research
A team of researchers at The University of Texas at Austin has demonstrated a new way to sequence proteins that is much more sensitive than existing technology, identifying individual protein molecules rather than requiring millions of molecules at a time. The advance could have a major impact in biomedical research, making it easier to reveal new biomarkers for the diagnosis of cancer and other diseases, as well as enhance our understanding of how healthy cells function.
[...] The current laboratory standard for sequencing proteins, using a tool called mass spectrometry, is not sensitive for many applications — it can detect a protein only if there are about a million copies of it. It also has a "low throughput," meaning it can detect only a few thousand distinct protein types in a single sample.
With this new method, called single molecule fluorosequencing, researchers can now sequence millions of individual protein molecules simultaneously in a single sample. Marcotte believes with future refinements the number of molecules that could be detected in a sample could reach into the billions. With higher throughput and much greater sensitivity than existing technology, the tool should allow for greater detection of biomarkers of disease and would also make it possible to study things such as cancer in a whole new way. For example, researchers could look, cell-by-cell, to understand how a tumor evolves from a small mass of identical cells to a soup of genetically divergent cells, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. Such insights could inspire novel ways to attack cancer.
Highly parallel single-molecule identification of proteins in zeptomole-scale mixtures (DOI: 10.1038/nbt.4278) (DX)
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday October 23 2018, @04:21PM (1 child)
Rational Drug Design can be done when the causes of a disease are understood at the molecular level. Sometimes that enables new drugs to be designed in software. If you know the structure of a molecule, it is common for any chemist to figure out how to synthesize it. A molecular biology major once explained that such synthesis is commonly the reverse of the process of breaking specific bonds with reagents.
More common, at least at one time, is to "Throw Medicinal Spaghetti At The Well To See What Sticks". My understanding is that the FDA will still approve a demonstrably efficacious and safe new drug even if its method of action is unknown.
Lithium was determined to treat and to prevent bipolar mania by giving lithium salts to guinea pigs, which were observed to calm down quite a lot. The researcher then gave lithium to a variety of mentally ill people, then observed that it clearly was effective for mania.
It happens that Lithium is quite toxic, and that the toxic dose is not far above the therapeutic dose, so when my mania was first diagnosed I had to have blood tests every single day for a month, then for a while after that once a week. It wasn't for a couple years that I only needed one lithium level every six months.
That leads to to speculate that the reason those guinea pigs were calmed by lithium was not because they were manic, but because they were poisoned.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Tuesday October 23 2018, @04:56PM
we can design molecules to bind to any target. Synthesis, however , is much hard.
Hence , all pharmaceuticals are "the worst copy of a natural molecule that works".
I have personal designed pharmaceuticals, and the chemophoric library is the starting point for "lead" compounds.
The joke when I started was "Rational drug design is coming" - So you're saying that before it was irrational??? ;-)
If you ever want to know why drugs have side-effects, remember the titration level has to be sufficient to saturate the body and be active.
Natural processes are usually extremely specific.