Sleep deprivation detected at cellular level.
 

We've always known how hard strings of earlies can be, but now there seems to be some solid science looking at cellular level at the changes sleep deprivation causes.

I wasn't aware such rapid gene changes took place.


BBC News - Bad sleep 'dramatically' alters body

I always knew that I had beaten medical science and here is the proof. God only knows why I am still alive but it does give me a cracking excuse for being overweight!

It is the activity of the genes that changes - not gene changes. ie it is not saying that your DNA changes and so your genes are altered, it is saying that the physiology of your cells changes because various different genes are turned on or off or are more active and so producing higher levels of various proteins. Basically it is nothing new and is just the way the body works... Change anything in the system, and the gene activity will change to compensate.

Lack of sleep 'switches off' genes - Telegraph


"

Well, I managed 14 years of a mixture of everything, 14 years of serious long haul and almost 20 years of night freighting.

Apart from being overweight, where does that leave me?

By the way, as a result of recent investigation which included an angiogram, there is nothing wrong with my heart either.

Thanks, GS. Clearly put.

Is poor sleep a medical issue ? I'm not sure it is. I used to advise my poorly sleeping patients to swim 20 lengths a day-tried it myself one day, was awake all night.

Not sure if there is a simple answer, I suspect the solution is multi faceted.:) Drugs (medicines) are probably a short term fix, sleep hygiene is probably the long term solution.

Cognoscenti

OK, I will put my head over the parapet!!!!!

I havent a clue about many of the terms you use. That is not a judgement, merely to reflect that after 30 years in mainstream medicine, involved in basic physiological research, I have never heard of any of this. I would be interested in the publications and papers you read.

I think the big issue is that, although there are some genes which predispose to specific illnesses - breast cancer being one - we cant say one gene is bad or good. Nor can we turn them off. If we could do so, cancer is just one disease that would disappear. The big unknown is why a cell misbehaves. The gene pool is unchanged, and any variances are relatively minor over short periods, but suddenly a catastophic error occurs.

If you can answer that I can give up medicine and fly full time!!

Often on this site we are asked about a new technique, drug or specialty. The doctors amongst us try to respond, but we need to know exactly what we are being asked. We need specific papers

You mention epigenetics which is merely a term for modifying gene function. One example is the creation of peri potent stem cells from cells that have specialised. Telometric gene sequencing refers to repetitive parts of the DNA strand which terminate the message.

What I don't understand is how this fits with the other terms you have used. Most of us do indeed have an open mind and would be keen to look at and debate any articles that you have. It might also make the forum more interesting for others. All too often we are accused of being Luddites and the thread goes cold. Surely amongst your many papers there must be one or two we could debate?

I'm not sure "conditioned" is fair comment. In fact, most doctors,(or at least the one I have most respect for," are actually awkward gitts, who take delight in questioning assumptions to better things for their patients.

Perhaps "the people" you talk about are hooked on process. I need outcome. They are different things.

I'm not a doctor, but I am an awkward gitt.

I'm up for helping you appraise a paper if you can send us a link.:)

Well said Gingernut

What many patients don't realise is that every doctor has to demonstrate regular reading of journals / attendance at meetings just to keep their license. Nurses have to write up and reflect on cases, referring to the literature. We may all look like a load of dumb @@@@@ but an out of date doctor very rapidly gets caught out.

I question whether these authors really do claim to think differently. Most academics I work with are humble people who take just the opposite view. The problem is often the media who blow the conclusions out of proportion.

So do let us sad gitts see your papers

I recall once boarding and aircraft and being given a copy of Scientific American. Those were the days. I had a ten hour flight and thought I'd really concentrate on the featured science of the month. It was about genetics. After a couple of hours, I realized it was totally beyond me to understand such a complex science - and that was 25 years ago.

Now, researchers somewhere are publishing every few hours, the the detail is breathtaking. Remember, it wasn't all that long ago that 'we' didn't know a cell had a membrane. I can understand that, it's only four - or was it seven - nanometers thick. Now, we find the surface is covered in mechanisms that are analogous to logic gates, and if we want to, we can look at the molecules that make the components function.

It's a new world, almost every day. How does anyone keep up with any scientific discipline?


Recently, I read about cancer cells almost randomizing parts of their code. It seemed they were more dangerous when starved of their 'food' and it was suggested a supply of the chemistry they ( or the target cell ? ) might be sated, and made not so dangerous.

Can't find it today - but it was here somewhere.

Science Daily: News & Articles in Science, Health, Environment & Technology


I read in on this every few hours. Better than sleeping tablets sometimes.




.

A case in point.


Viruses can have immune systems: A pirate phage commandeers the immune system of bacteria

To be fair, most health professionals haven't the time. At my last count, there were over 2 million articles published in over 20,000 journals (Mulrow 2004), so we have to rely on secondary research, ie collecting the data, appraising the findings, and coming to some sort of useful conclusion.

Ultimately, when sat in front of a patient, I need to know if intervention x is going to result in outcome y. Admittedly, that isn't always the case.

The model isn't perfect, but if you have an alternative, then let's hear it.The inner awkward gitt in me will be most receptive.

Cognoscenti put up a post with lots of words and ended with

let me know if I'm mistaken on anything, docs

Gingernut and I both said we didnt understand the question, but if we could look at any of the research referred to we would be happy to comment

The response was

I dont have any interest in debating the papers

and derogatory comments about our persuasion

Sadly this is almost exactly the same as occurred on another thread about CQ10 and others in the recent past. This forum offers a fantastic opportunity for anyone to ask questions and invite comments on anything medical. It would be really sad if all the doctors and healthcare professionals deserted it because we simply ask for clarification or sight of what the questioner has read. Just for the record, I am involved with a company doing gene modification which offers the possibility of curing a number of cancers in the next few years. I would have loved to discuss this. Instead, having been told my knowledge is non existent, and I have a mental block I am inclined not to waste my time. I am sure other doctors will reflect on the gratitude Cognoscenti has demonstrated towards us.

Ah some people do love us Gingernut!!!!!!

Question away.

But what was the question ?

Ha ha, nice one Fantome.

You may have hit the nail on the head. I'll let you into a secret-medicine 'aint that good.

We could debate for hours the purpose of the heath system we have in this country-it could be said that it's there to reduce inequalities, commission effectively, obtain value for money etc etc, but the bottom line is, it's there to improve health. Frankly, we're healthy because we've got clean water, town planning, we choose to go to the gym instead of the boozer, we're part of a community, we send our kids to school at an early age etc etc.

In fact a large part of my job is keeping people away from a system that could potentially hurt them. I'm not sure how realistic the show ER was (I only watched it 'cos I fancied Carol Hathaway), but it amazed me that if you turned up with a head cold, you immediately got a head scan and IV fluids. God forbid you had dementia, you got restrained.

Of course, there are some notable exceptions-immunisations, statins, systematic chronic disease management, and I'm sure my secondary/tertiary care colleagues could cite some as well.

Cancer care is notoriously crap in the UK, but we have made, and continue to make, some exceptional inroads into improving the patient journey. I'm exceptionally proud to have been involved in the two week wait, Gold Standards Framework & Liverpool Care Pathway. Of course, I recognise we've got a long way to go. For cog to say we're uninterested in translating evidence into outcme that makes a difference to our patients is unfair and untrue.

As homon rightly points out, people do love us. This is because we deal with people who are sometimes vulnerable and frightened, and are met with the human qualities of warmth, empathy and kindness that the bean counters often overlook.

Perhaps cog does have a valid point, he doesn't seem to be expressing it well though.:)