SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
"One of the major challenges to healing after [a] nerve injury is the formation of a glial scar."
A glial scar is formed by cells and biochemicals that knit together tightly around the damaged nerve. In the short term, this protective environment shields the nerve cells from further injury, but in the long term it can inhibit nerve repair.
About two decades ago, scientists discovered that a natural enzyme known as chondroitinase ABC — produced by a bacterium called Proteus vulgaris — can selectively degrade some of the biomolecules that make up the glial scar.
By changing the environment around the damaged nerve, chondroitinase ABC has been shown to promote regrowth of nerve cells. In animal models, it can even lead to regaining some lost function.
But progress has been limited by the fact that chondroitinase ABC is not very stable in the places where researchers want to use it.
"It's stable enough for the environment that the bacteria live in, but inside the body it is very fragile," says [senior author and University of Toronto Engineering professor Molly] Shoichet. "It aggregates, or clumps together, which causes it to lose activity. This happens faster at body temperature than at room temperature. It is also difficult to deliver chondroitinase ABC because it is susceptible to chemical degradation and shear forces typically used in formulations."
[...] "The wild type chondroitinase ABC loses most of its activity within 24 hours, whereas our re-engineered enzyme is active for seven days," says Marian Hettiaratchi, the other co-lead author of the paper. A former postdoctoral fellow in Shoichet's lab, Hettiaratchi is now a professor of bioengineering at the University of Oregon's Phil and Penny Knight Campus for Accelerating Scientific Impact.
"This is a huge difference. Our improved enzyme is expected to even more effectively degrade the glial scar than the version commonly used by other research groups," says Hettiaratchi.
Journal Reference:
Marian H. Hettiaratchi, Matthew J. O'Meara, Teresa R. O'Meara, et al. Reengineering biocatalysts: Computational redesign of chondroitinase ABC improves efficacy and stability [open], Science Advances (DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.abc6378)
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2020, @03:24AM (6 children)
"re-engineered enzyme"
Fascinating sequence of words. Reminds me of Lisa Simpson's quote about english words put together that don't make no sense.
If you don't know what it's about, maybe leave the post for someone else to do the proper editing?
Just a thought.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2020, @03:28AM (2 children)
Take it up with the University of Toronto Faculty of Applied Science & Engineering.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2020, @03:49AM (1 child)
Some uni's PR flaks deploy incomprehensible sci-fi mumbo-jumbo, so SN is cleansed? Is SN like a "common carrier?" Put out whatever that was put out? Is SN any different from phys.org?
(Score: 3, Touché) by sjames on Tuesday September 01 2020, @04:33AM
Since SN was quoting, yes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2020, @09:53AM
> "re-engineered enzyme"
What's the problem, get up on the wrong side of bed? There is a discipline these days called "genetic engineering". You may not like that name, or the results, but if you haven't heard of it you must have been living in the basement. Stretch your imagination just a teeny bit and perhaps you can see that similar techniques might be possible with enzymes as well.
Editors -- thank you for volunteering for this job, much appreciated!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2020, @01:25PM (1 child)
I suppose for something to be re-engineered you have to assume it was engineered to begin with.
Since I am a theist I believe that the enzyme was originally engineered by God (or perhaps was selected for and altered by natural selection and random mutation ... random mutation and selection being an intentional aspect of the original design).
But I see where you are coming from. The enzyme wasn't 'engineered' for the purpose of repairing nerve injury in the first place.
Perhaps a better term would be a genetically modified enzyme. Removes the whole debate about whether the enzyme was originally engineered or completely evolved to begin with.
But we're just nitpicking here I guess.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02 2020, @04:24AM
> Since I am a theist ...
This will be much more fun than nitpicking about engineered vs. re-engineered.
Since I am post-theological ... While I've always felt this way (didn't attend any church/temple/mosque/etc as a kid), I never had a term for it until an elderly relative sent us a copy of this article,
http://www.humanisttoronto.ca/legacy/2011/02/essay-on-being-post-theological.html [humanisttoronto.ca]
Occasionally, as a kid I'd be asked if I was agnostic or atheist and I just got confused--usually I tried to say something like, "none of the above".