Why some smokers don't get cancer

Image result for old man churchill with cigar and caption

IANS | Sep 10, 2015, 02.54 PM IST

Why some smokers don't get cancer (Getty Images)

Researchers have identified a set of genetic markers that help even smokers live longer and protect them from deadly diseases such as cancer.

"We identified a set of genetic markers that together seem to promote longevity," said corresponding author of the study Morgan Levine from University of California-Los Angeles.

The study identified a network of single nucleotide polymorphisms, or SNPs (a DNA sequence variation occurring commonly within a population) that allow certain individuals to better withstand environmental damage (like smoking) and mitigate damage.

"There is evidence that these genes may facilitate lifespan extension by increasing cellular maintenance and repair," Levine noted.

"Therefore, even though some individuals are exposed to high levels of biological stressors, like those found in cigarette smoke, their bodies may be better set up to cope with and repair the damage," Levine pointed out.

Smoking has been shown to have drastic consequences for lifespan and disease progression, and it has been suggested that cigarette exposure may impact the risk of death and disease via its acceleration of the ageing process.

The new findings suggest that longevity, rather than being entirely determined by environmental factors, may be under the regulation of complex genetic networks which influence stress resistance and genomic stability.

Genomic instability also happens to be one of the hallmarks of cancer pathogenesis, and so the same genes that may promote survival among smokers may also be important for cancer prevention.

This is consistent with the findings of the study, which showed that the genes identified were associated with a nearly 11 percent lower cancer prevalence.

The findings appeared in the The Journals of Gerontology, Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences.

Artificial 'plants' could fuel future cars

PTI | Sep 9, 2015, 06.42 PM IST

Comments

Artificial 'plants' could fuel future cars

A research team has created an artificial leaf that produces methane, the primary component of natural gas, using a combination of semiconducting nanowires and bacteria.

LOS ANGELES: Scientists have taken a big step towards creating artificial 'plants' that can use only sunlight to make gasoline and natural gas to run future cars without polluting the environment.

A research team has created an artificial leaf that produces methane, the primary component of natural gas, using a combination of semiconducting nanowires and bacteria.

The research builds on a similar hybrid system that yielded butanol, a component in gasoline, and a variety of biochemical building blocks.

It is a major advance towards synthetic photosynthesis, a type of solar power based on the ability of plants to transform sunlight, carbon dioxide and water into sugars.

Instead of sugars, however, synthetic photosynthesis seeks to produce liquid fuels that can be stored for months or years and distributed through existing energy infrastructure.

In a roundtable discussion on his recent breakthroughs and the future of synthetic photosynthesis, Peidong Yang, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley said his hybrid inorganic/biological systems give researchers new tools to study photosynthesis - and learn its secrets.

"We're good at generating electrons from light efficiently, but chemical synthesis always limited our systems in the past," said Yang, also a co-director of the Kavli Energy NanoSciences Institute.

"One purpose of this experiment was to show we could integrate bacterial catalysts with semiconductor technology. This lets us understand and optimise a truly synthetic photosynthesis system," said Yang.

"Burning fossil fuels is putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere much faster than natural photosynthesis can take it out. A system that pulls every carbon that we burn out of the air and converts it into fuel is truly carbon neutral," said Thomas Moore, a professor of chemistry and biochemistry at Arizona State University.

Ultimately, researchers hope to create an entirely synthetic system that is more robust and efficient than its natural counterpart.

To do that, they need model systems to study nature's best designs, especially the catalysts that convert water and carbon dioxide into sugars at room temperatures.

"This is not about mimicking nature directly or literally," said Ted Sargent, the vice-dean of research for the Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering at University of Toronto.

"Instead, it is about learning nature's guidelines, its rules on how to make a compellingly efficient and selective catalyst, and then using these insights to create better-engineered solutions," said Sargent.

The study was published in the journal PNAS.

Google's Response To Microsoft Using Google To Increase Bing Relevance

from the get-over-it dept

It's inevitable as a company gets bigger and older that rather than just competing in the market, it starts attacking competitors and accusing them of doing something "wrong." It's too bad that Google appears to have reached this stage. There have been plenty of stories lately about Google's decreasing relevance and how its search results have been getting worse. There are plenty of ways to respond to this and improving search quality should be the main focus. But it looks like Google has, instead, decided to call out competitors. Specifically, Google set up an elaborate and pointless "sting operation," which appears to show that Microsoft uses Google results as a part of its overall relevance algorithm. Basically, it looks like for users who have the Bing toolbar installed, Microsoft aggregates some search information, perhaps including Google results, and weighs them (only partially) into its own algorithm.

This seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Google's search results are public and as an established player in the market, almost every comparison of alternative search engines, including Bing, compares it to Google. So, making use of Google data to improve its own rankings seems like a rather smart move.

Remember, too, that Google's own search algorithm is based on viewing what people are doing online and coming up with a ranking based on that. How is that any different than Microsoft viewing a variety of information online -- including Google's own search rankings -- and using that as the basis of its own rankings? But instead of recognizing that this is all perfectly reasonable, Google starts acting like the RIAA, accusing Microsoft of "cheating" and doing something that is potentially illegal. It even pops out this line from Amit Singhal, a Google Fellow who apparently oversees Google's search ranking algorithm.

"I've got no problem with a competitor developing an innovative algorithm. But copying is not innovation, in my book."

As if Google hasn't copied the work of others in the past? The very basis for the original Page Rank was "copied" from Jon Kleinberg's research and then built upon that work. It was not a direct copy, just as Microsoft's search results are not a direct copy. For Google to attack a competitor for using open information on the web -- the same way it does -- seems like the height of hypocrisy. It's fine for Google to crawl and index whatever sites it wants in order to set up its ranking algorithms, but the second someone looks at Google's own rankings as part of their own determination, suddenly its "cheating"?

This seems like the latest in a series of indications that Google has moved past the innovation stage into the "protecting its turf" stage. That would be a shame.

..............................................................................................

i am curious,beg to know ;why Google acts childish every day