Omics-based molecular techniques in oral pathology centred cancer: Prospect and challenges in Africa

: The completion of the human genome project and the accomplished milestones in the human proteome project; as well as the progress made so far in computational bioinformatics and “big data” processing have contributed immensely to individualized/personalized medicine in the developed world.At the dawn of precision medicine, various omics-based therapies and bioengineering can now be applied accurately for the diagnosis, prognosis, treatment, and risk stratifcation of cancer in a manner that was hitherto not thought possible. The widespread introduction of genomics and other omics-based approaches into the postgraduate training curriculum of diverse medical and dental specialties, including pathology has improved the profciency of practitioners in the use of novel molecular signatures in patient management. In addition, intricate details about disease disparity among diferent human populations are beginning to emerge. This would facilitate the use of tailor-made novel theranostic methods based on emerging molecular evidences

Low dose radiation: evidence triumphs over cancer fear

Large segments of Western populations hold sciences in low esteem. This trend became particularly pervasive in the field of radiation sciences in recent decades. The resulting lack of knowledge, easily filled with fear that feeds on itself, makes people susceptible to prevailing dogmas. Decades-long moratorium on nuclear power in the US, resentment of “anything nuclear”, and delay/refusal to obtain medical radiation procedures are some of the societal consequences. The problem has been exacerbated by promulgation of the linear-no-threshold (LNT) dose response model by advisory bodies such as the ICRP, NCRP and others. This model assumes no safe level of radiation and implies that response is the same per unit dose regardless of the total dose. The most recent (June 2005) report from the National Research Council, BEIR VII (Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation) continues this approach and quantifies potential cancer risks at low doses by linear extrapolation of risk values obtained from epidemiological observations of populations exposed to high doses, 0.2 Sv to 3 Sv. It minimizes the significance of a lack of evidence for adverse effects in populations exposed to low doses, and discounts documented beneficial effects of low dose exposures on the human immune system. The LNT doctrine is in direct conflict with current findings of radiobiology and important features of modern radiation oncology. Fortunately, these aspects are addressed in-depth in another major report—issued jointly in March 2005 by two French Academies, of Sciences and of Medicine. The latter report is much less publicized, and thus it is a responsibility of radiation professionals, physicists, nuclear engineers, and physicians to become familiar with its content and relevant studies, and to widely disseminate this information. To counteract biased media, we need to be creative in developing means of sharing good news about radiation with co-workers, patients, and the general public

Differential immunoglobulin class-mediated responses to components of the U1 small nuclear ribonucleoprotein particle in systemic lupus erythematosus and mixed connective tissue disease

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) and Mixed Connective Tissue Disease (MCTD) possess differential IgM-and IgG-specific reactivity against peptides from the U1 small nuclear ribonucleoprotein particle (U1 snRNP). METHODS: The IgM- and IgG-mediated responses against 15 peptides from subunits of the U1 snRNP were assessed by indirect ELISAs in sera from patients with SLE and MCTD and healthy individuals (n = 81, 41 and 31, respectively). Additionally, 42 laboratory tests and 40 clinical symptoms were evaluated to uncover potential differences. Binomial logistic regression analyses (BLR) were performed to construct models to support the independent nature of SLE and MCTD. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves corroborated the classification power of the models. RESULTS: We analyzed IgM and IgG anti-U1 snRNP titers to classify SLE and MCTD patients. IgG anti-U1 snRNP reactivity segregates SLE and MCTD from non-disease controls with an accuracy of 94.1% while IgM-specific anti-U1 snRNP responses distinguish SLE from MCTD patients with an accuracy of 71.3%. Comparison of the IgG and IgM anti-U1 snRNP approach with clinical tests used for diagnosing SLE and MCTD revealed that our method is the best classification tool of those analyzed (p ≤ 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Our IgM anti-U1 snRNP system along with lab tests and symptoms provide additional molecular and clinical evidence to support the hypothesis that SLE and MCTD may be distinct syndromes

Radon Treatment Controversy

In spite of long traditions, treatments utilizing radon-rich air or water have not been unequivocally embraced by modern medicine. The objective of this work is to examine factors that contribute to this continuing controversy. While the exact mechanism of radon's effect on human body is not completely understood, recent advances in radiobiology offer new insights into biochemical processes occurring at low-level exposures to ionizing radiation. Medical evidence and patients' testimonials regarding effectiveness of radon spa treatments of various ailments, most notably rheumatoid arthritis are accumulating worldwide. They challenge the premise of the Linear-No-Threshold (LNT) theory that the dose-effect response is the same per unit dose regardless of the total dose. Historically, such inference overshadowed scientific inquiries into the low-dose region and lead to a popular belief that no amount of radiation can be good. Fortunately, the LNT theory, which lacks any scientific basis, did not remain unchallenged. As the reviewed literature suggests, a paradigm shift, reflected in the consideration of hormetic effects at low-doses, is gaining momentum in the scientific community worldwide. The impetus comes from significant evidence of adaptive and stimulatory effects of low-levels of radiation on human immune system

Rad-by-Rad (Bit-by-Bit): Triumph of Evidence Over Activities Fostering Fear of Radiogenic Cancers at Low Doses

Large segments of Western populations hold sciences in low esteem. This trend became particularly pervasive in the field of radiation sciences in recent decades. The resulting lack of knowledge, easily filled with fear that feeds on itself, makes people susceptible to prevailing dogmas. Decades-long moratorium on nuclear power in the US, resentment of “anything nuclear”, and delay/refusal to obtain medical radiation procedures are some of the societal consequences. The problem has been exacerbated by promulgation of the linear-no-threshold (LNT) dose response model by advisory bodies such as the ICRP, NCRP and others. This model assumes no safe level of radiation and implies that response is the same per unit dose regardless of the total dose. The most recent (June 2005) report from the National Research Council, BEIR VII (Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation) continues this approach and quantifies potential cancer risks at low doses by linear extrapolation of risk values obtained from epidemiological observations of populations exposed to high doses, 0.2 Sv to 3 Sv. It minimizes the significance of a lack of evidence for adverse effects in populations exposed to low doses, and discounts documented beneficial effects of low dose exposures on the human immune system. The LNT doctrine is in direct conflict with current findings of radiobiology and important features of modern radiation oncology. Fortunately, these aspects are addressed in-depth in another major report—issued jointly in March 2005 by two French Academies, of Sciences and of Medicine. The latter report is much less publicized, and thus it is a responsibility of radiation professionals, physicists, nuclear engineers, and physicians to become familiar with its content and relevant studies, and to widely disseminate this information. To counteract biased media, we need to be creative in developing means of sharing good news about radiation with co-workers, patients, and the general public