Sunday, January 18, 2015

Immune Systems Shaped by Environment

Not that it is really "news" that different environmental exposure impact a persons' immune system, a study at Stanford University details of how it relates to genetics, finding that even amongst the closest genetically related people (i.e. twins), the immune system is shaped by the environment. Perhaps our grandparents had a point when they said that children playing in the dirt "builds the immune system"!!

http://www.thehoopsnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/not-Genes-Environment-Influences-Immune-System.jpg
Source: http://www.thehoopsnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/not-Genes-Environment-Influences-Immune-System.jpg

Found on Environmental News Network:
Why did you get the flu this winter, but your co-workers didn’t? The answer, according to a new study of twins, may have less to do with your genes and more to do with your environment—including your past exposure to pathogens and vaccines.
Our immune system is incredibly complex, with diverse armies of white blood cells and signal-sending proteins coursing through our veins, ready to mount an attack on would-be invaders. Everyone’s immune system is slightly different—a unique mixture of hundreds of these cells and proteins. But the main driver of this variation is unclear. Although scientists know that our immune system can adapt to our environment—that’s why vaccines work, for instance—it is also built by our genes.
To unravel the competing influences of nature and nurture, researchers led by immunologist Mark Davis of Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, turned to the gold standard test: a twin study. Identical twins are nearly the same genetically, whereas fraternal twins share only about half of their genes. If a trait is hereditary, identical twins will be more likely to share it than fraternal twins, allowing scientists to tease out the genetic component.
After recruiting 210 identical and fraternal twins between 8 and 82 years old, Davis and colleagues took blood samples and measured more than 200 parameters of their immune systems. For example, they measured the numbers of 95 kinds of immune cells and 51 kinds of proteins. Today, the researchers report online in Cell that identical twins’ immune systems were too different for the variation to boil down to genetics. Indeed, environment overshadowed inheritance in three-quarters of the measurements, and half showed no measurable genetic influence. Moreover, younger twins were more similar than were older twins, evidence that as the twins aged and were exposed to different environments, their immune systems diverged over time.
The researchers also looked for genetic influence in the twins’ responses to flu vaccines. Some people react more strongly to vaccines than others, producing more antibodies: proteins that our bodies manufacture to identify and protect us from invading microbes. If this trait were genetic, identical twins would have similar responses. Instead, the variation in responses was almost entirely the result of environmental differences—presumably, what strains of flu the twins had previously been exposed to.

The original article can be found from the Science Magazine with a concluding statement:
“There’s nothing here that is revolutionary or requires rethinking of our assumptions about how the immune system functions,” says David Baltimore, a biologist at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. But, he says, “I found it very impressive … that as we age, our immune systems become molded in increasingly individual ways.”

Saturday, January 17, 2015

Low Income Affects Education in the USA

The Southern Education Foundation has released a demographic map to include the percentage of students attending public schools that are considered "low income" based upon subsidization for lunches. Now, this statement does not conclude that each of the students qualifying for subsidized lunches and thus considered "low income" are living in poverty (though there are some that are), it means that the students' parental income does not exceed 185% of the poverty level. To qualify for a free lunch, the parental income does not exceed 135% of the poverty level; for reduced lunch fares, parental income does not exceed 185% of the poverty line. The Federal poverty threshold in 2013 was $23,550 for a family of four.

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/rulesforengagement/Percent-of-Low-Income-Students-in-PS-2015.png
Source: http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/rulesforengagement/Percent-of-Low-Income-Students-in-PS-2015.png





The National Average "Low Income" Percentage
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/17/us/school-poverty-study-southern-education-foundation.html?_r=0


The status of US funding for education doesn't seem to be getting better, and neither are the obstacles that the politicians and administrators face... In 1993, the US national average for low-income students was 33%. Twenty years later, in 2013, the average has risen to 51%. It seems the quality of education that can or cannot be afforded, is being hindered by a need to provide food for our children. Surely, the Nation's unemployment percentage has decreased to 5.6% in 2014, and the annual median income has risen from $43,000 to $51,000 from 1967 to 2010. So, why has the national average for "low income" schools increased at a rate that is not proportionate to the national average annual income?? And more importantly, what does this mean for the education of the future generations, if a larger percentage of the funding provided by the government is covering meals rather than books or teachers? What does this mean for the schools and for our children?

-- U.S. Median Household Income Chart - 1975 - 2010 --
Source: http://www.davemanuel.com/median-household-income.php


According to an article released 17 January 2015 by Education Week:
What does this mean for schools?
Schools have, of course, been confronted by the challenges of poverty for years, but crossing the majority threshold certainly creates a powerful conversation point in debates on the local, state, and federal levels about issues ranging from equity and accountability to student supports.
"That deepening poverty likely will complicate already fraught political discussions on how to educate American students, as prior research has shown students are significantly more at risk academically in schools with 40 percent or higher concentrations of poverty," Education Week wrote when it covered growing trends of poverty in 2013.
And, as Rules for Engagement previously reported, poor families are increasingly moving into the suburbs and living in areas with high concentrations of poverty, creating dimensions to the debate.
The new majority of low-income students is yet another new reality for American educators. U.S. schools hit another major milestone this year, when the U.S. Department of Education projected that a majority of students would be from racial and ethnic minority populations.
While poverty is challenging schools everywhere, some schools have fewer resources to address it.

Wednesday, January 7, 2015

Worlds Within Worlds - Bacteria "Talk"

Source: http://2012.igem.org/wiki/images/d/d1/Media_5a7257dc5595cb7be3df7954509f3e90.jpeg


Below is a TED Talk by Bonnie Bassler on how bacteria "talk". It's an interesting lecture and is spoken in plain terms - a great 18 minutes of time and well worth viewing. Now, how does bacteria "talking" relate to Environmental Perception? Well, admittedly it may seem as a single point of interest, but only if it is taken at face value... If we start to think about communication and what we think of as "intelligence", perhaps this TED Talk could stimulate a new way of looking at our world and environment.

For anyone who has read or watched the Dr. Seuss "Horton Hears a Who" - there are worlds within worlds! Just as Horton could hear a community of "Whos" in a seeding dandelion, there are communities of organisms beyond what we can see or hear! So the next time you look at a drop of water running from your gutters when it rains, and think it's just H2O and devoid of life, think again. There is a whole community of organisms in that single drop, having a "conversation". Now, think about the natural environment: water from the oceans, fields of grass, leaves in a forest, sand on a beach, the skin on your body... the list goes on. And yes, there are communities of organisms there too!! But don't fret - these are not all "bad" organisms. In fact, there are many organisms that live symbiotically (i.e. mutually beneficial relationship) that help us!! This is how our multifaceted immune system functions. How COOL is that?!?

Now, taking it a step further into a hypothetical... what about our world? Surely, if there are worlds within our world, might there be worlds above our worlds? There isn't a "right" answer here - but is something for you to consider - and is not intended to challenge anyone's personal, spiritual, or religious beliefs. Nonetheless, it is an interesting thought!

Interesting thoughts on how we view the natural world is just one of Environmental Perception's goals: to get people thinking.






Further reading:
    Miller, Melissa B., and Bonnie L. Bassler. "Quorum sensing in bacteria." Annual Reviews in Microbiology 55.1 (2001): 165-199.
    Irvine, Karen. "Worlds Within Worlds." Catalogue Essay (Conner Contemporary Art, Washington, DC) (2009).
    Ley, Ruth E., et al. "Worlds within worlds: evolution of the vertebrate gut microbiota." Nature Reviews Microbiology 6.10 (2008): 776-788.
    http://www.davidpratt.info/worlds.htm
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse 
    Bernard Carr, ed. (2007) Universe or Multiverse? Cambridge Univ. Press.
    Ellis, George F.R.; William R. Stoeger; Stoeger, W. R. (2004). "Multiverses and physical cosmology". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 347 (3): 921–936. arXiv:astro-ph/0305292. Bibcode:2004MNRAS.347..921E. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07261.x.