Bioengineering a virus a to infect visceral adipocytes -- a good idea?

[Green Xenon]

Hi:

 

Would it be practical to gene-modify a virus to infect the cells of the visceral adipose tissue as a cure for obesity?

 

 

Thanks,

 

Green Xenon

[Xittenn]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19165154?ordinalpos=21&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18599527?ordinalpos=64&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

 

hmmmmm does it have to attack the fat cell directly?

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19261336?ordinalpos=12&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

 

and

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18473870?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=4&log$=relatedreviews&logdbfrom=pubmed

Edited July 25, 2009 by buttacup

[Green Xenon]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19165154?ordinalpos=21&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18599527?ordinalpos=64&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

 

hmmmmm does it have to attack the fat cell directly?

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19261336?ordinalpos=12&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

 

and

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18473870?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=4&log$=relatedreviews&logdbfrom=pubmed

 

So why aren't tests being done on human volunteers?

[Xittenn]

Who says they aren't?

[John Cuthber]

Hi:

 

Would it be practical to gene-modify a virus to infect the cells of the visceral adipose tissue as a cure for obesity?

 

 

Thanks,

 

Green Xenon

 

No, because you couldn't be sure that it wouldn't infect other people for whom it would be a problem

[Xittenn]

No, because you couldn't be sure that it wouldn't infect other people for whom it would be a problem

 

But they are working on an already existent virus......... Is the act of manipulating and/or exploiting the activity of said virus not an act of Bio Engineering? Granted it has not been deliberately modified to any extent........... I wasn't thinking so explicitly!

[Green Xenon]

Who says they aren't?

 

I'd like to volunteer for this. How much does it cost to be a volunteer?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

No, because you couldn't be sure that it wouldn't infect other people for whom it would be a problem

 

Who would it be problem for?

 

Subcutaneous adipose tissue is necessary in moderation. Visceral adipose tissue is not at all necessary and is in fact detrimental to health.

[Psycho]

I'd like to volunteer for this. How much does it cost to be a volunteer?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

 

Who would it be problem for?

 

Subcutaneous adipose tissue is necessary in moderation. Visceral adipose tissue is not at all necessary and is in fact detrimental to health.

It would be a problem for everyone who doesn't want it or need it and it isn't the fat that is so detrimental to your health it is the other physiological levels that cause the problems such as the build up of arthromas as well as general lack of exercise and other factors.

[Green Xenon]

It would be a problem for everyone who doesn't want it or need it and it isn't the fat that is so detrimental to your health it is the other physiological levels that cause the problems such as the build up of arthromas as well as general lack of exercise and other factors.

 

 

What is the downside of not having any visceral adipose tissue?

[insane_alien]

well for one you won't have any energy reserves at all. imagine a marathon runner when they hit the wall, usually they go on to metabolise the fat, without it they'd just die.

[John Cuthber]

I'd like to volunteer for this. How much does it cost to be a volunteer?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

 

Who would it be problem for?

 

Subcutaneous adipose tissue is necessary in moderation. Visceral adipose tissue is not at all necessary and is in fact detrimental to health.

 

If that were true then I'd like to know why evolution hadn't wiped it out long ago.

Or are you saying that you are cleverer than a few billion years of evolution?

[Green Xenon]

well for one you won't have any energy reserves at all. imagine a marathon runner when they hit the wall, usually they go on to metabolise the fat, without it they'd just die.

 

For this they need subcutaneous fat, not visceral fat. The former provides energy. That latter significantly increases blood pressure and leads to clogged arteries.

[John Cuthber]

Feel free to answer my questions.

[Green Xenon]

If that were true then I'd like to know why evolution hadn't wiped it out long ago.

Or are you saying that you are cleverer than a few billion years of evolution?

 

 

Evolution assumed a "feast or famine" cycle. Evolution did not intend for a sedentary lifestyle and gorging on butter, cream, and sugar.

 

When evolution does not assist us, we must find other means. Permanently and totally eliminating the visceral adipose tissue sounds like a good start.

[Mokele]

Four minor points:

 

First, muscles use both fat and carbohydrates in almost all circumstances, even at rest. The ratio changes during increasingly intense exercise, and you actually rely more on carbs than fat at high intensities.

 

Second, visceral fat and subcutaneous fat are BOTH burned during exercise.

 

Third, visceral fat is actually the basal condition - subcutaneous fat is a uniquely mammalian adaptation to provide insulation. We've been dealing with visceral fat for close to half a billion years now.

 

Finally, I've only seen bodies without any visceral fat at all a few times. Usually associated with either rapidly progressing cancers like pancreatic cancer or extreme old age (95+). The body needs fat, and it needs fat reserves, both sucutaneous and visceral.

 

Mokele

Edited July 26, 2009 by Mokele

[Green Xenon]

Four minor points:

 

First, muscles use both fat and carbohydrates in almost all circumstances, even at rest. The ratio changes during increasingly intense exercise, and you actually rely more on carbs than fat at high intensities.

 

Second, visceral fat and subcutaneous fat are BOTH burned during exercise.

 

True but carbs are the cleanest source of energy. Metabolism of fat produces toxic byproducts [such as ketones]. The kidneys have to eliminate this which strains them.

 

Third, visceral fat is actually the basal condition - subcutaneous fat is a uniquely mammalian adaptation to provide insulation. We've been dealing with visceral fat for close to half a billion years now.

 

So all animals have visceral fat?

 

Finally, I've only seen bodies without any visceral fat at all a few times. Usually associated with either rapidly progressing cancers like pancreatic cancer or extreme old age (95+). The body needs fat, and it needs fat reserves, both sucutaneous and visceral.

 

That's because the cancer uses so much energy that it causes massive breakdown of adipose -- both subcutaneous and visceral -- to meet the body's metabolic demands.

[Mokele]

True but carbs are the cleanest source of energy. Metabolism of fat produces toxic byproducts [such as ketones]. The kidneys have to eliminate this which strains them.

 

No, not actually. Ketones are actually necessary for brain and heart function, and are mostly dealt with by a reaction in the liver which turned them into energy and CO2. Only acetone (a tiny portion of the ketones) even gets filtered out at the kidney, and there it does no more damage than anything else.

 

So all animals have visceral fat?

 

All vertebrates do. I'm not sure about invertebrates.

 

That's because the cancer uses so much energy that it causes massive breakdown of adipose -- both subcutaneous and visceral -- to meet the body's metabolic demands.

 

That was my point - total lack of visceral fat is indicative of serious disease and strain on the body, not of health.

[insane_alien]

That was my point - total lack of visceral fat is indicative of serious disease and strain on the body, not of health.

 

in addition, if you lacked fat and contracted a serious disease or your body was strained then you would more likely to die and/or die faster.

[Green Xenon]

in addition, if you lacked fat and contracted a serious disease or your body was strained then you would more likely to die and/or die faster.

 

Sorry for my persistence but won't the subcutaneous fat suffice even if there is no visceral fat?

[John Cuthber]

I still think a decent diet and a reasonable amount of exercise is a better bet.

[Mokele]

The underlying problem is the assumption that, if an excess of visceral fat is bad, then none is good. Given that it exists in even healthy people, and pretty much everyone who isn't dying horribly, as well as all vertebrates, I doubt it's a good idea to eliminate it.

[Green Xenon]

I still think a decent diet and a reasonable amount of exercise is a better bet.

 

True. However, what will be the disadvantages if there is an optimum amount of subcutaneous adipose tissue but absolutely no visceral adipose tissue?

Edited July 26, 2009 by Green Xenon

[John Cuthber]

If someone creates the virus you were talking about then, whether I like it or not, I become a guinnea pig in your experiment to find out.

Try selling that to the ethics committee.

[Green Xenon]

If someone creates the virus you were talking about then, whether I like it or not, I become a guinnea pig in your experiment to find out.

 

But then you can eat all the butter-rich, cream-filled desserts w/out suffering ill health consequences. Right?

[Psycho]

But then you can eat all the butter-rich, cream-filled desserts w/out suffering ill health consequences. Right?

No.