Fish with Insensative Dioxin Receptor Survive in PCB Polluted Hudson River

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gene...way_the_poison

Packing Away The Poison
Genetic mutation allows Hudson River fish to adapt to PCBs, Dioxins
2/17/2011

Some fish in New York’s Hudson River have become "resistant" to
several of the waterway’s more toxic pollutants. Instead of getting
sick from dioxins and related compounds including some polychlorinated
biphenyls, Atlantic tomcod harmlessly store these poisons in fat, a
new study finds.

But what’s good for this bottom-dwelling species could be bad for
those feeding on it, says Isaac Wirgin of the New York University
School of Medicine’s Institute of Environmental Medicine in Tuxedo.
Each bite of tomcod that a predator takes, he explains, will move a
potent dose of toxic chemicals up the food chain — eventually into
species that could end up on home dinner tables.

From 1947 to 1976, two General Electric manufacturing plants along the
Hudson River produced PCBs for a range of uses, including as
insulating fluids in electrical transformers. Over the years, PCB and
dioxin levels in the livers of the Hudson’s tomcod rose to become
“among the highest known in nature,” Wirgin and his colleagues note
online February 17 in Science. Because these fish don’t detoxify PCBs,
Wirgin explains, it was a surprise that they could accumulate such
hefty contamination without becoming poisoned. His team now reports
that the tomcod’s protection traces to a single mutation in one gene.
The gene is responsible for producing a receptor protein needed to
unleash the pollutants’ toxicity.

All vertebrates contain molecules in their cells that will bind to
dioxins and related compounds. Indeed, these proteins — aryl
hydrocarbon receptors, or AHRs — are often referred to as dioxin
receptors. Once these poisons diffuse into an exposed cell, each
molecule can mate with a receptor and together they eventually pick up
a third molecule. This trio can then dock with select segments of DNA
in the cell’s nucleus to inappropriately turn on genes that can poison
the host animal.

The tomcod actually has two types of AHRs, with AHR-2 offering the
most effective binding to dioxin-like pollutants. But one naturally
occurring AHR-2 variant, the result of a gene mutation, proves a very
poor mate, Wirgin’s team has found. It takes five times more of the
pollutants to get substantial binding than is needed with the
conventional AHR-2.

In local rivers relatively free of dioxins and PCBs, 95 percent of
tomcod possess AHR-2 only in the conventional form. But in the PCB-
rich Hudson, Wirgin’s group finds, the only kind of AHR-2 protein in
99 percent of tomcod is the poorly binding variant.

The mutant receptor appears to have evolved long ago and to be widely
dispersed. But in the Hudson, fish with the gene to make the mutant
receptor have thrived, while those without it have died out ...

-----

For more on POPs & Insulin Resistance, see
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2854721/

jay wrote:

Wirgin explains, it was a surprise that they could accumulate such
hefty contamination without becoming poisoned. His team now reports
that the tomcod’s protection traces to a single mutation in one gene.
The gene is responsible for producing a receptor protein needed to
unleash the pollutants’ toxicity.

Great news! Now that we know the gene, we can get it too.
Dioxin won't be considered a toxin anymore.

On 8/6/2011 9:05 PM, Mark Thorson wrote:
jay wrote:

Wirgin explains, it was a surprise that they could accumulate such
hefty contamination without becoming poisoned. His team now reports
that the tomcod’s protection traces to a single mutation in one gene.
The gene is responsible for producing a receptor protein needed to
unleash the pollutants’ toxicity.

Great news! Now that we know the gene, we can get it too.
Dioxin won't be considered a toxin anymore.

There was one incidence of a public report stating that the early
tests for DDT didn't distinguish between DDT and PCB's, and that's
what led to the entire "silent spring" debacle.

And of course what people miss completely is that PCB's were
outlawed at the same time that DDT was, so the effect on birds
could have come from either, or both, being reduced. I doubt that
anyone will ever own up to this mjor error after so many years
of condemning DDT.

In article ,
outsider wrote:

On 8/6/2011 9:05 PM, Mark Thorson wrote:
jay wrote:

Wirgin explains, it was a surprise that they could accumulate such
hefty contamination without becoming poisoned. His team now reports
that the tomcod¹s protection traces to a single mutation in one gene.
The gene is responsible for producing a receptor protein needed to
unleash the pollutants¹ toxicity.

Great news! Now that we know the gene, we can get it too.
Dioxin won't be considered a toxin anymore.

There was one incidence of a public report stating that the early
tests for DDT didn't distinguish between DDT and PCB's, and that's
what led to the entire "silent spring" debacle.

And of course what people miss completely is that PCB's were
outlawed at the same time that DDT was, so the effect on birds
could have come from either, or both, being reduced. I doubt that
anyone will ever own up to this mjor error after so many years
of condemning DDT.

Why aren't you over with the social scientists, or did they send you
over here? DDT, PCB, Dioxin, PBDE among others are called "persistent
organic pollutants". Because they don't break down. They are even found
in penguins, although there hasn't been a mosquito problem in Antarctica
for years. DDT hasn't been outlawed, it has been restricted. Thing is,
if you keep using the same poison, the little buggers build-up a
resistance. And don't you worry about the makers of biocides, twice as
much is being produced today, than back when Rachel Carson published
"Silent Spring". It's all bad ****.
--
- Billy
Both the House and Senate budget plan would cut Social Security and Medicare, while cutting taxes on the wealthy.

Kucinich noted that none of the government programs targeted for
elimination or severe cutback in House Republican spending plans
"appeared on the GAO's list of government programs at high risk of
waste, fraud and abuse."
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/state...is-kucinich/re
p-dennis-kucinich-says-gop-budget-cuts-dont-targ/

[W]e have the situation with the deficit and the debt and spending and jobs. And it¹s not that difficult to get out of it. The first thing you do is you get rid of corporate welfare. That¹s hundreds of billions of dollars a year. The second is you tax corporations so that they don¹t get away with no taxation.
- Ralph Nader
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/19/ralph_naders_solution_to_debt_crisis

On 8/7/2011 12:47 AM, Billy wrote:
In ,
wrote:

On 8/6/2011 9:05 PM, Mark Thorson wrote:
jay wrote:

Wirgin explains, it was a surprise that they could accumulate such
hefty contamination without becoming poisoned. His team now reports
that the tomcod¹s protection traces to a single mutation in one gene.
The gene is responsible for producing a receptor protein needed to
unleash the pollutants¹ toxicity.

Great news! Now that we know the gene, we can get it too.
Dioxin won't be considered a toxin anymore.

There was one incidence of a public report stating that the early
tests for DDT didn't distinguish between DDT and PCB's, and that's
what led to the entire "silent spring" debacle.

And of course what people miss completely is that PCB's were
outlawed at the same time that DDT was, so the effect on birds
could have come from either, or both, being reduced. I doubt that
anyone will ever own up to this mjor error after so many years
of condemning DDT.

Why aren't you over with the social scientists, or did they send you
over here?

Billy, I've had these discussions before in a.s.d. and I've been here
more than a year discussing diabetes as well as the (mis)behavior of
the local gentry. So what's with the smart aleck comment?

DDT, PCB, Dioxin, PBDE among others are called "persistent
organic pollutants". Because they don't break down.

They don't seem to break down in nature is different from they don't
break down. Since there is no accurate measure of the persistence, we
only suspect things, but don't actually know them.

In the past few decades, the methods of destruction have grown. My
look at the problem some decades back revealed that the only method
available for destruction was passing the product through a molten
sodium bath. While the method works, it is today not the only successful
means for destroying the "persistent" chemicals you're complaining about
here.

They are even found
in penguins, although there hasn't been a mosquito problem in Antarctica
for years. DDT hasn't been outlawed, it has been restricted. Thing is,
if you keep using the same poison, the little buggers build-up a
resistance. And don't you worry about the makers of biocides, twice as
much is being produced today, than back when Rachel Carson published
"Silent Spring". It's all bad ****.

We've not been able to create "magic bullet" toxins that affect only one
lifeform. The likelihood of doing so is minute, perhaps nonexistent. In
the meanwhile I'd rather see penguins in the antarctic experience a
reduction in numbers than a million humans a year lose their lives to
infection by the lowly mosquito. Ans since the mosquito develops a
resistance to the effects of DT, for example, so will the penguins, and
other lifeforms, over time.

But it seems that humans are not developing an immunity to the
infections dispensed by mosquitoes.

All that's left is to select our victims. So far we've selected the
human being.

In article ,
outsider wrote:

On 8/7/2011 12:47 AM, Billy wrote:
In ,
wrote:

On 8/6/2011 9:05 PM, Mark Thorson wrote:
jay wrote:

Wirgin explains, it was a surprise that they could accumulate such
hefty contamination without becoming poisoned. His team now reports
that the tomcod¹s protection traces to a single mutation in one gene.
The gene is responsible for producing a receptor protein needed to
unleash the pollutants¹ toxicity.

Great news! Now that we know the gene, we can get it too.
Dioxin won't be considered a toxin anymore.

There was one incidence of a public report stating that the early
tests for DDT didn't distinguish between DDT and PCB's, and that's
what led to the entire "silent spring" debacle.

And of course what people miss completely is that PCB's were
outlawed at the same time that DDT was, so the effect on birds
could have come from either, or both, being reduced. I doubt that
anyone will ever own up to this mjor error after so many years
of condemning DDT.

Why aren't you over with the social scientists, or did they send you
over here?

Billy, I've had these discussions before in a.s.d. and I've been here
more than a year discussing diabetes as well as the (mis)behavior of
the local gentry. So what's with the smart aleck comment?

DDT, PCB, Dioxin, PBDE among others are called "persistent
organic pollutants". Because they don't break down.

They don't seem to break down in nature is different from they don't
break down. Since there is no accurate measure of the persistence, we
only suspect things, but don't actually know them.

In the past few decades, the methods of destruction have grown. My
look at the problem some decades back revealed that the only method
available for destruction was passing the product through a molten
sodium bath. While the method works, it is today not the only successful
means for destroying the "persistent" chemicals you're complaining about
here.

They are even found
in penguins, although there hasn't been a mosquito problem in Antarctica
for years. DDT hasn't been outlawed, it has been restricted. Thing is,
if you keep using the same poison, the little buggers build-up a
resistance. And don't you worry about the makers of biocides, twice as
much is being produced today, than back when Rachel Carson published
"Silent Spring". It's all bad ****.

We've not been able to create "magic bullet" toxins that affect only one
lifeform. The likelihood of doing so is minute, perhaps nonexistent. In
the meanwhile I'd rather see penguins in the antarctic experience a
reduction in numbers than a million humans a year lose their lives to
infection by the lowly mosquito. Ans since the mosquito develops a
resistance to the effects of DT, for example, so will the penguins, and
other lifeforms, over time.

But it seems that humans are not developing an immunity to the
infections dispensed by mosquitoes.

All that's left is to select our victims. So far we've selected the
human being.

Your premise is wrong. DDT hasn't been band, and how much will it cost
us to throw away one of our best defenses to the mosquito by allowing
the mosquito to quickly develop a resistance to DDT? DDT is used, but
selectively with other practices, and insecticides to control mosquitos.
Global warming will bring more mosquitos. Exposure to the bubonic plague
seems to have imbued some with resistance to HIV. Is this the price you
want us to pay, not to mention the further loss bio-diversity? You
really should look into a subject before you start pronouncing on it.
--
- Billy
Both the House and Senate budget plan would cut Social Security and Medicare, while cutting taxes on the wealthy.

Kucinich noted that none of the government programs targeted for
elimination or severe cutback in House Republican spending plans
"appeared on the GAO's list of government programs at high risk of
waste, fraud and abuse."
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/state...is-kucinich/re
p-dennis-kucinich-says-gop-budget-cuts-dont-targ/

[W]e have the situation with the deficit and the debt and spending and jobs. And it¹s not that difficult to get out of it. The first thing you do is you get rid of corporate welfare. That¹s hundreds of billions of dollars a year. The second is you tax corporations so that they don¹t get away with no taxation.
- Ralph Nader
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/19/ralph_naders_solution_to_debt_crisis

In alt.support.diabetes outsider wrote:

We've not been able to create "magic bullet" toxins that affect only one
lifeform.

Because we haven't had the technology to be that specific, except by
lucky accident.

The likelihood of doing so is minute, perhaps nonexistent.

Not nonexistent, and growing rapidly as genomics science and
technology develops.

In
the meanwhile I'd rather see penguins in the antarctic experience a
reduction in numbers than a million humans a year lose their lives to
infection by the lowly mosquito. Ans since the mosquito develops a
resistance to the effects of DT, for example, so will the penguins, and
other lifeforms, over time.

But it seems that humans are not developing an immunity to the
infections dispensed by mosquitoes.

You've not heard of sickle cell anemia?

--
Chris Malcolm

On 8/6/2011 9:05 PM, Mark Thorson wrote:
jay wrote:

Wirgin explains, it was a surprise that they could accumulate such
hefty contamination without becoming poisoned. His team now reports
that the tomcod’s protection traces to a single mutation in one gene.
The gene is responsible for producing a receptor protein needed to
unleash the pollutants’ toxicity.

Great news! Now that we know the gene, we can get it too.
Dioxin won't be considered a toxin anymore.

As soon as we get past a problem in the current gene therapy
methods - inserting the new genes into a random point in the
old genes, and therefore in some cells likely to disable a
gene that prevents that cell from turning into cancer.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/dec/19/cancer.medicalresearch

It's known that inserting the new genes into the cells but
not into the old genes is a good way to make sure that the
new genes don't last long.