HybridMedia Austin ( AP ) ----The battle for cancer
has a new friend. This Friend is called Archaea.
In conjunction with genomics,
Barron Medical Journal has discovered A understanding on how as humans ,we get
cancer. The question on everyone’s mind is why some folks get cancer and others
do not get cancer. Looking back billions of years, we know now, our genes can be
pass not only from A
mother and father to their child. Now we know, Genes can be
pass from one spices to the next. Yes from humans to animals. In other words with the knowledge of Archaea is a mirco Process that causes good genes to go bad. This is the same process over billion of years genes passing from humans to animals. Scientist has known for a while eukarya and bacteria in terms of genetic, biochemical, and structural features go hand in hand.
For example, archaea possess unique flagellins and ether-linked lipids and lack
murein in their cell walls Multiple archaeal genomes have been sequenced to
completion, contributing to a better understanding of the unique cellular
processes of archaea and
their role in adaptation to extreme environments.
Despite the information emerging about archaeal genomes, structure, and
function, much remains unknown. Over half of archaeal genes encode unique
proteins with unknown functions Difficulties in the isolation and cultivation
of archaea also contribute to a relative lack of knowledge. No definitive
virulence genes or factors have been described in archaea to date.
Nevertheless, archaea may have the means, and they certainly have the
opportunity, to cause disease.>Archaea share some characteristics with known pathogens that may reflect the potential to cause disease.Such characteristics include ample access to a host (i.e., opportunity) and capabilities for long-term colonization and coexistence with endogenous flora in a host
The detection of anaerobic archaea in the human colonic vaginal and oral microbial flora demonstrates their ability to colonize the human host. Details regarding their survival in such human niches, including human immune system evasion and competition with normal human flora, however, are largely unavailable. Whether or not members of the possess virulence factors as commonly defined (i.e., the means for causing disease) is unclear. Of course, generalizations about a group of organisms as diverse as archaea are problematic. With this in mind, one might ask
whether there are any fundamental features shared by archaea that should preclude them from acting as pathogens. In this paper, we discuss human diseases in which archaea may play a role as well as potential virulence characteristics of archaea, possible explanations for the current absence of information about archaea as pathogens, and molecular methods that might be utilized in the search for such pathogens.
Might archaea be capable of causing disease? Current data suggest that archaea are able to colonize and survive in humans. However, no concerted efforts have been undertaken to implicate archaea in human disease. The full spectrum of outcomes from these archaea-human interactions, whether it includes altered host physiology, tissue damage, or clinical disease, remains a mystery. In general, pathogens are distinguished from commensals by their reliance onstrategy for survival and replication in or transmission from a host that regularly leads to cellular, tissue, or organismal damage. Strategies can vary enormously, but they often define a signature for a family of pathogens. These strategies involve gaining access to the host in sufficient numbers, adhering to and colonizing a niche, evading host defenses, and multiplying in the If some archaea behave as pathogens they probably follow this basic scheme, but they may use fundamentally different mechanisms at some or all of these steps.Charles Darwin “tree of life,” variously construed, goes back
a long way in Western thinking — to the Book of Revelation, for instance,
wherein the image of the tree seems to represent Christ, with his leafy and
fruity blessings for the world. In 1801 the French botanist Augustin Augier
used
a tree as a kind of chart, for bringing order to the diversity of plants.
He clustered major groups together on limbs and depicted minor groups as leaves
at the ends of smaller branches. This wasn’t evolutionary thinking; it was just
data management.That simple, pragmatic use of the arboreal metaphor changed
profoundly in 1837, when young Charles Darwin, just back from the Beagle voyage
and scribbling reckless
thoughts in a notebook, drew a small sketch of the
first evolutionary tree. Above it he wrote: “I think.” This tree was
hypothetical, its branches labeled with letters, not actual species, but what
it meant to Darwin was;I think all creatures have arisen from a
single source, diverging and changing somehow over timeHe didn’t yet
have a theory of the evolutionary process — the concept of natural selection
would come later — but his sketch at least gave him an image of evolutionary
history and its results. From that he could work backward, attempting to deduce
the mechanism.
Comments
Post a Comment