Publié le Laisser un commentaire

Vitalia Co-Founders Announce Split-up

Vitalia co-founders Niklas Anzinger and Laurence Ion today announced that they will be leading two new, separate organizations, Viva City and Infinita City.

“Together, we built Vitalia from the ground up, establishing a foundation that has led us to this exciting new chapter,” said Anzinger and Ion in a joint statement. “This decision stems from our shared recognition that our unique perspectives can best flourish in two distinct organizations, each with its own approach. Both companies remain committed to accelerating biomedical innovation, and we look forward to building on our shared legacy in complementary directions.”

Laurence Ion will lead Viva City, which will concentrate on building a city within a special regulatory zone governed by its residents, to accelerate medical innovation and extend healthy lifespan.

Niklas Anzinger will head Infinita City, which will concentrate on special regulatory zones as a path to acceleration.

“We extend our gratitude to our community, partners, and investors, whose trust has been pivotal,” added Anzinger and Ion. “We are eager to share our next steps and invite you to join us on these parallel journeys. Vitalia will forever continue in our shared memory.”

Joint Statement of Vitalia Co-founders

We are excited to announce that we are moving forward along two paths to best pursue our respective visions.

Together, we built Vitalia from the ground up, establishing a foundation that has led us to this exciting new chapter.

Laurence will lead Viva City, which will concentrate on building a city within a special regulatory zone governed by its residents, to accelerate medical innovation and extend healthy lifespan. It can be followed on these new channels: Website | Linktree

Niklas will head Infinita City, which will concentrate on special regulatory zones as a path to acceleration, which can be followed on these new channels: Website | Linktree

This decision stems from our shared recognition that our unique perspectives can best flourish in two distinct organizations, each with its own approach.

Both companies remain committed to accelerating biomedical innovation, and we look forward to building on our shared legacy in complementary directions.

We extend our gratitude to our community, partners, and investors, whose trust has been pivotal. We are eager to share our next steps and invite you to join us on these parallel journeys.

Vitalia will forever continue in our shared memory.

Niklas Anzinger & Laurence Ion

Vitalia

We would like to ask you a small favor. We are a non-profit foundation, and unlike some other organizations, we have no shareholders and no products to sell you. All our news and educational content is free for everyone to read, but it does mean that we rely on the help of people like you. Every contribution, no matter if it’s big or small, supports independent journalism and sustains our future.
Publié le Laisser un commentaire

Drinking and Dying: Alcohol as a Risk Factor for Cancer

A new advisory by the US Surgeon General highlights a topic that – as the document itself notes – has been flying mostly under the public’s radar: the relationship between alcohol consumption and cancer. While most people are aware of smoking and obesity being risk factors for cancer, apparently, less than half of Americans know that a growing body of evidence links alcohol to this deadly disease.

A major preventable risk factor

The advisory, based on the current state of research, calls alcohol “a leading preventable cause of cancer in the United States, contributing to nearly 100,000 cancer cases and about 20,000 cancer deaths each year.” Alcohol consumption is linked to at least seven cancer types: breast, colorectum, esophagus, liver, mouth, throat, and larynx.

“It appears that alcohol is most closely linked to the cancers of all levels of the digestive system, which is expected, as alcohol causes DNA damage, creating dangerous mutations and causing a malignant transformation in some cells,” explained Anna Barkovskaya, PhD, of Lifespan Research Institute. “This is most likely to happen in tissues that it directly comes into contact with.”

There is one notable outlier, however: breast cancer. The advisory speculates that alcohol could elevate the risk of breast cancer by affecting hormonal levels. “It is unclear and unproven, however, as the advisory itself mentions, that this takes place,” Barkovskaya explained. “It is also unclear and unspecified why this does not occur in men and why there does not appear to be a link with prostate cancer.”

The numbers

According to the document, alcohol consumption is the third leading preventable cause of cancer in the US, after tobacco and obesity. “In absolute numbers, in 2019,” it says, “an estimated 96,730 cancer cases were related to alcohol consumption, including 42,400 in men and 54,330 in women. This translates to nearly 1 million preventable cancer cases over ten years in the U.S.”

In general, the higher the alcohol consumption, the greater the risk of cancer. However, alarmingly, at least with breast, mouth, and throat cancers, the risk increase starts even at low levels of consumption, even at less than one drink per day on average. 83% of alcohol-related cancer deaths are associated with levels of alcohol consumption above the recommended limit of two drinks daily for men and one drink daily for women. Still, the remaining 17% occur below this threshold.

In American women, the largest burden of alcohol-related cancer is for breast cancer: estimated 44,180 cases in 2019. For men, the leading alcohol-related cancers are liver and colorectal.

“Breast cancer is the most common cancer type in women,” Barkovskaya mentioned. “However, it is very diverse, and the different brands of this disease are caused by distinct molecular dysfunctions. It is therefore unclear exactly how and if alcohol directly promotes breast cancer, or if this effect reflects a broader alcohol-related cancer probability increase.”

Discussing the actual increases in risk, the advisory cites a study that reported that in women, the absolute lifetime risk of developing any alcohol-related cancer increases from 16.5% to 19.0% for those who consume one drink daily on average and to 21.8% for those who consume two drinks daily on average, compared to those consuming less than one drink per week. In other words, even heavy drinking increases a woman’s chances to get cancer by only about 5 percentage points. For men, those figures are 10%, 11.4%, and 13.1%, respectively.

The mechanisms

The advisory offers some thoughts on possible mechanisms that link alcohol to cancer, while admitting those are still under investigation. “Multiple studies,” it says, “have shown that giving rats and mice drinking water with ethanol or its primary metabolic breakdown product, acetaldehyde, results in increased tumor numbers at multiple places in the body. At high levels such as those that occur with consumption of alcohol, acetaldehyde is highly toxic and cancer-causing.”

Acetaldehyde causes cancer by binding to DNA and damaging it, which can trigger oncogenic mutations. On top of that, alcohol generates reactive oxygen species, which promote inflammation and can also damage DNA, proteins, and lipids through oxidation.

The third possible mechanism involves alcohol altering hormone levels, including estrogen, which might be relevant for breast cancer. Finally, the report says, carcinogens from other sources, such as particles of tobacco smoke, can dissolve in alcohol, which would increase their absorption.

“The best-established evidence is on the first two pathways of acetaldehyde and inflammation,” the document concludes. “Hormonal regulation and alcohol as a solvent are widely agreed upon to be important pathways for carcinogenesis but are not yet fully understood.”

Isn’t moderate drinking good for you?

Longevity physician David Barzilai, MD, PhD, fittingly calls the report “quite sobering” and adds that it “challenges the presumed protective role of moderate alcohol consumption and emphasizes the need for improved methodologies to address this critical public health issue.”

Indeed, until fairly recently, most research showed a U-shaped (or J-shaped) association between alcohol and mortality, meaning that the lowest risk corresponds to moderate levels of consumption. Newest findings, however, suggest a more linear correlation.

One possible cause of misinterpreting the real nature of the relationship is reverse causation, when people give up drinking after having developed health problems. This artificially elevates average risk levels for teetotalers and lowers them for drinkers. Most of the data in this field comes from population studies, which are notoriously noisy and can only establish correlation but not causation. Essentially, the jury is still out.

While some researchers hold that we should completely give up alcohol, Barzilai strikes a moderate tone: “While a well-validated lower boundary of the dose-response curve between alcohol intake and cancer risk remains unclear (and there may be no minimum threshold effect), the absolute risk of cancer is especially low for individuals consuming two or fewer alcoholic beverages per week. For those who enjoy the social aspects of alcohol, it seems reasonable to follow previous guidelines.”

The recommendations

Unsurprisingly, quitting or reducing drinking helps. According to a recent evidence review cited in the advisory, alcohol cessation or reduction decreases the risk of mouth cancer and esophageal cancer. “More research is needed to determine if this risk decreases for other cancer sites and whether it decreases to the level observed in people who never consume alcohol,” the authors say.

The numbers featured in the advisory are population averages and don’t tell a lot about personal risk levels, which can be affected by people’s genetic makeup. Thankfully, today, anyone can have their genome sequenced to assess their personal vulnerability. For instance, the document says, “many individuals of East Asian descent have a genetic variant that results in an alcohol flushing response and reduces their ability to metabolize acetaldehyde, which produces much higher risks for certain alcohol-related cancers.”

The advisory also calls for increasing public awareness of alcohol consumption as a risk factor for cancer. To do so, the authors recommend updating the existing Surgeon General’s health warning label on alcoholic beverages with a specific warning about alcohol increasing cancer risk. However, this is a Congressional prerogative that requires political involvement to set into motion.

“It would be interesting,” Barkovskaya explained, “to explore the link between cancer and alcohol from the viewpoint of aging. Much of the damage caused by alcohol is exactly the kind that is known to promote aging. Cancer, broadly, is also a disease of aging. This begs a question if alcohol consumption at different points in life has different effects on aging, and by extension – cancer and the resulting lifespan.”

We would like to ask you a small favor. We are a non-profit foundation, and unlike some other organizations, we have no shareholders and no products to sell you. All our news and educational content is free for everyone to read, but it does mean that we rely on the help of people like you. Every contribution, no matter if it’s big or small, supports independent journalism and sustains our future.
Publié le Laisser un commentaire

A Potential Gene Therapy for Hearing Loss

In JCI Insight, researchers have explored the possibility of using gene therapy to restore a crucial protein and repair hearing loss.

Hearing and its failure

In mammals, afferent neurons, which originate from the inner ear, transform received stimuli (sound waves) into electrical signals [1]. This process is known as mechanoelectrical transduction, and a specific myosin, MYO7A, has been found to be a critical part of it [2]. Problems with the related gene, Myo7a, result in various forms of deafness [3].

Knocking this gene out in mature animals has been found to lead to reversion into a nonfunctional state, which is normally found in prenatal animals that have not yet developed the ability to hear [4]. This state is characterized by efferent neurons, which originate from the brain stem rather than inner ear cells, having direct connections to the inner ear that do not exist in functionally hearing animals. As this process also occurs with aging [5], the researchers decided to investigate whether or not directly affecting this gene could lead to hearing restoration in an animal model.

Mice that lose their hearing

The researchers developed a mouse strain that can be triggered to downregulate the Myo7a gene. A few days after this gene was downregulated, mice of both sexes quickly lost their hearing, and by two weeks, the mice were nearly completely deaf at all frequencies, and a large part of their hearing was found to be rewired into the same nonfunctional state found in prehearing and aged animals. Myo7a was not found to affect the afferent neurons themselves, only the efferent innervation of hair cells.

Downregulating Myo7a only in the inner hair cells, which directly send signals to the brain, was found to be sufficient to lead to deafness. Downregulating it in the outer hair cells, amplifier cells that are more susceptible to damage and aging, led to deafness as well.

Restoration through gene therapy has positive effects

Injecting the inner ears of these genetically modified mice with an adeno-associated virus (AAV) that restores this protein had positive effects, with many wiring structures being restored to their functional adult versions. However, it did not fully restore the mice’s hearing to the level of an unaffected control group. Most of the treated animals could hear very loud noises as measured by the auditory brainstem response thresholds for clicker tests (left) and specific pure tone frequencies (right).

Of course, this is a study on a genetically modified mouse model, not aged wild-type animals nor human beings. Further research will need to be done to determine if aged animals can be affected by this kind of gene therapy and whether or not the results can be replicated in people. Furthermore, the effects of this particular AAV approach were weak, but if it can be applied to people, it may be enough to allow hearing aids to function more effectively.

Additional findings

The researchers discovered that MYO7A controls many aspects of hearing loss that were previously hypothesized to occur due to other factors, such as secondary effects from other systems failing or a failure in proper molecular transport. This research also sheds some light on a link between loud noise and deafness: to protect the ears, the brain uses the efferent system to temporarily reduce hearing capability in loud situations [6], and this may be related to the efferent innervation of the inner ear over time.

The most critical finding is that the adult cochlea, which processes hearing, is in fact capable of being remodeled through changes in gene expression after birth. True biological hearing restoration, once merely a dream, appears to finally be on the table with this and other recent gene therapy approaches [7], and people with congenital deafness caused by some Myo7a mutations, or people who have lost their hearing through repeated noise exposure, may have an effective treatment in the future.

We would like to ask you a small favor. We are a non-profit foundation, and unlike some other organizations, we have no shareholders and no products to sell you. All our news and educational content is free for everyone to read, but it does mean that we rely on the help of people like you. Every contribution, no matter if it’s big or small, supports independent journalism and sustains our future.

Literature

[1] Fettiplace, R. (2011). Hair cell transduction, tuning, and synaptic transmission in the mammalian cochlea. Comprehensive Physiology, 7(4), 1197-1227.

[2] Hasson, T., Gillespie, P. G., Garcia, J. A., MacDonald, R. B., Zhao, Y. D., Yee, A. G., … & Corey, D. P. (1997). Unconventional myosins in inner-ear sensory epithelia. The Journal of cell biology, 137(6), 1287-1307.

[3] Weil, D., Küssel, P., Blanchard, S., Lévy, G., Levi-Acobas, F., Drira, M., … & Petit, C. (1997). The autosomal recessive isolated deafness, DFNB2, and the Usher 1B syndrome are allelic defects of the myosin-VIIA gene. Nature genetics, 16(2), 191-193.

[4] Corns, L. F., Johnson, S. L., Roberts, T., Ranatunga, K. M., Hendry, A., Ceriani, F., … & Marcotti, W. (2018). Mechanotransduction is required for establishing and maintaining mature inner hair cells and regulating efferent innervation. Nature Communications, 9(1), 4015.

[5] Lauer, A. M., Fuchs, P. A., Ryugo, D. K., & Francis, H. W. (2012). Efferent synapses return to inner hair cells in the aging cochlea. Neurobiology of aging, 33(12), 2892-2902.

[6] Fuchs, P. A., & Lauer, A. M. (2019). Efferent inhibition of the cochlea. Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine, 9(5), a033530.

[7] Amariutei, A. E., Jeng, J. Y., Safieddine, S., & Marcotti, W. (2023). Recent advances and future challenges in gene therapy for hearing loss. Royal Society Open Science, 10(6), 230644.