Fungicides Trigger Autism-Related Gene Expression Changes in Mice

       A study was conducted by senior author Mark Zylka, PhD, associate professor of cell biology and physiology at UNC and his colleagues. The study involved exposing brain cells, or neurons, of mice to around 300 chemicals, including a variety of fungicides. Fungicides are chemicals that can prevent or kill the growth of fungi, protecting plants and crops from fungi-relate damage. Using RNA sequencing on the mouse neurons were performed in order to pick out which genes will be affected by the exposure to the chemicals. Results were confirmed by comparing the exposed neurons to chemicals to the non exposed neurons. With the use of computer programs, the scientists were able to determine which chemicals trigger similar changes in gene expression. There were six identified groups of chemicals which alter the gene expression within mouse neurons; rotenone, pyridaben, fenpyroximate, and strobilurins, chemicals in the strobilurins include pyraclostrobin, trifloxystrobin, fenamidone, and famoxadone.

       Results concluded that the chemicals reduced the expression of the genes that play an important role in brain communication, which interferes with brain functioning that leads to delays and decreased skills. The chemicals also increased the expression of genes associated with the nervous system and caused inflammation, which is most commonly seen in autism and neurodegenerative disorders. Researchers also found the chemicals can result in cell damage which can lead to interfered brain cells. Researchers can not confirm the effects from strobilurins will have the same effect on human brains, only with further research can this be truly confirmed.

       Since being a vegetarian for almost ten years, this study has shocked me. When living a healthy lifestyle and staying free of added hormones and antibiotics from animal protein, only to discover that there are terrible effects of maintaining a strict-plant based diet is meaningless for individuals who follow a vegetarian lifestyle. I hope further research will be conducted to truly determine whether or not these fungicides are related to autism. In the future if this study is confirmed to be true then hopefully, there can be a prevented measure or even the ending the use of these certain fungicides do decrease the rates or autism and neurodegenerative disorders.

Click here for original source :http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/308432.php

Replacing Pesticides With Genetics

The Diamondback Moths have been a problem for cabbage farmers in the New York for some time. The moths are normally being treated with alternating types of pesticides. The scientists are substituting sex for spray pesticide by infusing the sprays with DNA designed to kill female larvae.


I hope this study and research is successful in a controlled dynamic to study the effects the new bugs have on the environment, before they are completely introduced into massive crop land. I'm glad that there is research being done to use less chemicals.


original article

Weed Killer, Long-Cleared, Is Doubted

Recently, an agency of the World Health Organization (WHO) determined that glyphosate, an active ingredient in Roundup, a popular weed killer, might cause cancer. Thirty years ago, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said the same thing. However, in 1991, EPA changed their decision and said that roundup is non carcinogenic for humans. WHO recently came up with their conclusion based off of the same mouse study that caused EPA to changed theirs.  The maker of Roundup, Monsanto is angry and accusing the agency of having an ulterior motive, and that they are picking certain data in support of its claim. Monsanto's VP said that WHO's claim goes against other studies that has tested glyphosate's safety. The recent claim demonstrates the different interpretations for the same data, and how politically complicated a change in decisions can be. Glyphosate is not only used in Roundup but in other generic products as well since its introduction in 1970 because it was considered to be non harmful in comparison to other pesticides. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment said it was still evaluating whether glyphosate and products containing it is labeled as a cancer hazard. Some groups use this controversy in its favor to enforce the labeling of genetically modified foods (GMOs). They also want the EPA to re-evaluate glyphosate and 2,4-D, another herbicide. The different in interpretation comes form what questions and answers each agency is looking for. Currently, there is only a brief paper that has published WHO's conclusion, so it is hard to say what the thought process was behind it. Monsanto said that something can be considered carcinogenic even though it has very few evidence for a positive study.

I think the findings of this study show that there are good points from both side. I believe that Monsanto is angry because this finding, if taken seriously, will impact his company. I am glad that the WHO agency brought this topic back up because pesticide is used everyday, and a product should not continued to be used if it is not safe. I think that the WHO agency has the people's best interest while the company behind Roundup does not have the people's best interest.

Link 1: Original Article

Link 2: Supplement

Cured From the Inside Out

When we think about chemistry, the image that usually comes to mind is some sort of laboratory with bubbling, colorful substances in every-sized flasks over an ancient-looking Bunsen burner. We think of fume hoods with chemicals we probably shouldn’t be inhaling and little glass vials that probably should be labeled. We think of a traditional chemistry lab. However, an article recently published in ScienceDaily has a new, different image of chemistry…chemistry done within the laboratory of the human body.



A newly founded field of chemistry, by Carolyn Bertozzi, Ph.D., has started to emerge for the past decade known as bioorthogonal chemistry. First emerging from her study of viewing a virus entering a cell with fluorescent probes, its focus is a new form of drug development where chemical ingredients are added separately into the body where they eventually meet up at a designated point, create a reaction, and cure the patient. How is this different from other, pre-made oral drugs? Sometimes the oral drugs never reach the goal location strong enough to make an effect on the diseased tissue targeted. With this new method, the numerous ingredients, just like in a laboratory setting, are added separately, with each keeping their strong concentrations. Then, at a given point, they come in contact with one another, and a reaction occurs to produce the desired drug within the patient’s body.

However, as exciting as this may sound, it’s a bit trickier than it seems. In a lab, the conditions are easily controllable. (Ex. Temperature, timing, light exposure, cleanliness, etc.) In the human body, things are not quite so black and white. It’s more of all gray. There are different compounds, chemicals, and water all over the place, with little controls. Plus these chemists are restricted to reactions that can only occur in water, having the pH of 7, and at body temperature. After fighting through all of these obstacles, only then can the drugs begin to be made within the body.