linsenbardt.net
A Blog for Brooke and Andy
A Blog for Brooke and Andy
Jul 26th
These posts, tagged “Primer,” are posted for two reasons: 1). to help me get better at teaching non-scientists about science-related topics; and 2). to help non-scientists learn more about things they otherwise would not. So, while I realize most people won’t read these, I’m going to write them anyway, partially for my own benefit, but mostly for yours.
My postdoctoral fellowship here at the University of Iowa still involves research on the mechanisms by which Parkinson’s disease progresses, much like my research at Saint Louis University, but I’m employing different techniques. In an effort to explain those techniques, I’m going to try outlining them here, as it’s a technique that’s “tossed around” on shows like “CSI:” on an almost weekly basis.
Mass Spectrometry is a technology developed over 100 years ago and has been employed by researchers for much of that time. The high cost of procuring one of these instruments (easily in the $10,000s, if not approaching $100,000+) makes them somewhat difficult to find in the undergraduate setting, and sometimes difficult to find in graduate schools. Larger institutions, such as the University of Iowa, will have a few of them, but more than likely, you’ll have to share the instrument with quite a few others, not-so-patiently waiting their turn.
The instrument I’m using is called an LCMS-IT-TOF, pictured above. The acronym stands for “liquid chromatography mass spectrometer – ion trap – time of flight.” Each section of the acronym represents a distinct component of the mass spectrometer: there are different components that can be inserted to achieve similar analytical results in a different fashion. Some components are better for some types of analyses, while other components are better for others.
But, in keeping this relatively simple, I won’t go into it each part. Feel free to check out the Wikipedia article on the subject if you really want to know more about it, but basically, a mass spectrometer is divided into three primary components:
The “source” effectively destroys whatever you’re wanting to look at. There are a variety of different sources one can have in their configuration (e.g. MALDI, ESI, ACPI, etc.) In my case, let’s say you have a protein you want to investigate. The mass analyzer can look at it, but the nature of the type of data it provides makes it much easier to break the protein up into smaller bits first. Therefore, the source breaks up your relatively large molecule of interest (such as the protein in our example) into smaller, more manageable pieces. As with many other things, taking things in “baby steps” is much easier to deal with.
The “mass analyzer” is necessary to help with sorting of all those small, manageable pieces. Think of this process like a box of cereal (I know, right?). Specifically, Frosted Mini-Wheats. When you open the box, you’ll notice that there are mostly fully-formed Mini-Wheats at the top of the box. As you continue on toward the bottom, you’ll start seeing some smaller pieces, some that may have split in half, for example. And at the bottom of the box, you’ll see all the individual wheat fibers and sugar frosting. The same premise holds for a mass analyzer. All those pieces of protein broken up by the source are in different sizes, and the mass analyzer helps sort them out in such a way that the small pieces, medium pieces, and the large pieces are all separated. As with the source, there are many different types of mass analyzers (e.g. TOF, IT, Quadrupole, etc.) used to carry out this work, depending on what you’re looking at.
The “detector” is the piece that really gives us the information we want. After those bits of sample are sorted, they each hit the detector one at a time and the detector tells us what the mass is, typically by actually reading the electrical charge of the sample. Typically, the source (sometimes referred to as an “ionization source”) introduces a charge to each piece of the sample, allowing for the detector to…um…detect them. :-)
So, how is my work fitting into this? Our lab is interested in how a particular molecule, 3,4-dihydroxyphenylaldehyde (DOPAL) may be involved in Parkinson’s disease. DOPAL is a metabolite of dopamine, the neurotransmitter necessary in order for you to make voluntary movements. When you run out of dopamine (or the cells that produce it, in the region of the brain where you need it), you get Parkinson’s disease. Dopamine is present in those cells, which therefore means DOPAL is present, too. DOPAL is an aldehyde, which means, on a chemical level, it can bind with other molecules relatively easily. What we want to know is whether DOPAL may bind to proteins within those cells. This may matter because cells tend to function in certain ways, and if their individual parts (e.g. DNA, organelles, proteins, etc.) get modified somehow, they won’t work properly and, subsequently, the cell will kill itself to prevent further damage to surrounding cells and tissues.
We want to see whether DOPAL binds to any proteins. If we can find proteins that DOPAL binds to, and if we know what those proteins do inside a cell, then we may be able to a). protect them against DOPAL’s binding, or b). develop drug targets toward those proteins to help prevent them from causing death of the cell.
How does mass spectrometry fit into this equation? Back to our early example of a protein being introduced into a mass spectrometer. The instrument will tell us how much a protein weighs on a molecular level. We also know how much a single molecule of DOPAL weighs. We can, thus, use a mass spectrometer to see whether the mass of a protein increases when DOPAL is present. If that occurs, we can show that DOPAL has bound to the protein. We can also get information as to where on the protein DOPAL bound, or how much DOPAL bound to the protein, and so on.
In the image above (upper left), you can see some vertical lines we refer to as “peaks.” Each peak represents a single mass of a given protein or molecule. You can then take that peak and “fragment” it into smaller peaks. You can do this multiple times (e.g. MS, MS2, MS3 and so on…). Fragmentation patterns give you an idea as to what makes up a complex molecule. For example, if you went from MS to MS2 and had a loss of 18, you could say that you lost a water molecule during fragmentation (O=16, H=1…H2O=18). In the case of DOPAL, we would see an increase in mass (and a shift of the peak) of 151, depending on how DOPAL bound to our protein of interest.
So, basically, that’s what I’m doing in the lab. There’s quite a bit more to the story than this, but I think I’ve simplified the concepts to a mostly understandable level.
Probably not, though. :-)
Jul 20th
Brooke and I were outside trying to avert the catastrophe that is our tomatoes when Brooke found this thing eating one:
And just to give you more of an idea of how big the thing was, we grabbed a shot of it next to (ish) Brooke’s hand:
Brooke noted that there was a tomato nearby that looked like the evil caterpillar had taken a few bites, but there wasn’t much damage done. However, considering the size of the thing, you have to wonder if it ate a few whole tomatoes before we got outside and found it.
Anyway, there are apparently giant caterpillar monsters in our garden. Watch for the SyFy Saturday Night Movie on the subject in the coming months.
Jul 15th
Mike has been Facebooking and blogging about the subjects surrounding the material in the Ben Stein documentary, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.” Primarily, Mike got to thinking about it after reading an article by evolutionary theorist, Richard Dawkins, where he says that Stein distorted things Dawkins said in the documentary. Admittedly, Mike hasn’t actually seen the movie (as of this writing), and neither had I when I first read his post, but thanks to the wonders of Netflix Instant Queue, I took the time to watch it.
In his blog post, Mike argues that one of, if not the, primary issue in the debate is a lack of civility, where both sides (Creation vs Evolution) take things so personally that they cannot have a reasonable argument about the matter. I’ll leave that discussion to Mike, however, as my problem with the whole thing is a general ignorance of the definition of “science.”
science –noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
…
Now, the key in that definition is “…gained through observation and experimentation.” I know I’ve talked about this before (stupid Lee Strobel…), but the definition of science is quite important to understanding what the problem is with the debate.
By the definition put forth above, Intelligent Design (and, relatedly, Creationism) is not science. I can say this with conviction because I know that in order for it to be science, it must be testable. If you cannot test a theory, then you cannot consider it science and it must stay firmly in the realm of philosophy.
philosophy –noun
1. the rational investigation of the truths and principles ofbeing, knowledge, or conduct.
…
5. a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs.
Philosophy is very good about providing analysis of an argument. One could even describe them as “thought experiments,” where one ruminates on a particular moral or existential issue and comes to a conclusion. However, those conclusions are hardly “evidence,” as they cannot be reproduced by other individuals performing the exact same experiment with the same parameters. If one person has a “thought experiment,” their experiences in their own lives will inform their conclusions, leading to differences between individuals. Science, on the other hand, holds specific variables consistent so that any individual can come to the same conclusion, irrefutably. If I drop a ball in Iowa and you drop the same ball in Missouri, or China, they will both hit the ground in the same amount of time (assuming the ball is held the same way and the height it is dropped from held constant, but only the location of the experiment has changed).
This is, inherently, the issue: Evolution (in the form of Natural Selection) can be, and has been, tested in many, many different ways and it has held up to the toughest of scrutiny; Intelligent Design cannot be tested and, therefore, is not science. Have all facets of evolution (in the form of Natural Selection) turned out to stand up to that scrutiny? No, and the Theory of Evolution has been modified when that new evidence has appeared. I can’t think of a time when Creationism/Intelligent Design has been modified when new evidence has been presented.
Creationists have been trying to get Creationism in public schools for decades, believing that Evolution is not only incorrect, but is somehow anti-Creation. I’m not going to get into that part of the debate, although I have some pretty clear opinions on it. I don’t even necessarily have a problem with teaching religion in public schools, as long as they’re all treated equally (i.e. you can teach Christian tenets as long as you also teach the ideas of Islam, Judaism, etc.). But I do have serious problems with passing off Intelligent Design as science, and serious issues with the people that purport that Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools in science classrooms.
Whether my comments are “civil” or not, I don’t know (they probably aren’t…), but I do know that the proponents of teaching Intelligent Design in science classes are wrong and are doing a disservice to students everywhere. Science is difficult enough to understand as it is, let alone adding things into the classroom that don’t belong there and simply confuse everyone involved.
Jul 12th
We went to church yesterday and, I must say, the sermon wasn’t very impressive. But more generally speaking, I haven’t really been impressed by a sermon in quite awhile.
I got to thinking about this while the sermon was going on, and while I was trying to follow what she was saying. Specifically, the pastor was talking about Creation, referring to the scripture readings from the beginning of Genesis (“In the beginning…”-type stuff). Now, she got to talking about dirt, how the ground can give you things and how you can “play” with/in dirt, etc. I was hoping she would then move into how this is important for farmers in the area, or people at home with their gardens. How the earth provides food that we need, and how satisfying it can be to use the earth at our disposal to be productive.
But she didn’t go there. Instead, she moved past that and made it to how, essentially, we need to read the Bible (i.e. “The Word”) and glean everything from it. She also repeatedly referred to “visions” she had (hopefully she meant “dream,” ’cause otherwise, I think she needs to adjust her meds accordingly) that provided analogs of Heaven, with people praising God in His Creation.
Basically, she re-tread the same steps countless pastors of mine have tread in the past. And these are things I’ve been exposed to practically every Sunday for 28 years.
Now, I realize that there is a time and a place for such talk. ”Seeker churches,” for example, where you have a proportion of individuals that have not been attending church for as long as me and they are hearing these things for the first time in their lives. And I also realize that, at any church, there will be folks that walk through the door and need to hear some of these things as an introduction to the Christian faith. Likewise, children in church need to hear it at some point, too (but there’s this thing called “Sunday School” where a lot of that can be addressed, and frequently is).
But seriously, it feels like Brooke and I have been attending churches on various levels for the last 5-10 years (and separately before that), hearing sermons in a variety of contexts, and the vast majority of them tread the same ground as has been done before. And the most serious problem for me is that “the same ground” is losing relevance quickly. The things being discussed in most of these sermons are the things I heard discussed when I was in elementary school. Are they still important? Sure. But so is poverty. So is on-going war. So is strife in third-world countries. So is crime. So are natural disasters. These are all things that are relevant in today’s world, that apply to everyone, and that need to be addressed in the church setting.
I’m not talking “poverty” in the sense of “poor people” like discussed in the Bible. I’m talking about specifics. About people in Asia and Africa that live on less than I make in 2 min, let alone all the people in the United States that don’t make a livable wage and can’t afford to feed their families. I’m not talking “war” in the sense of battles waged in the Bible, but the specifics of Afghanistan and Iraq, amongst other places in the world. I’m not talking “disasters” in the sense of a Great Flood, but in the specifics of Hurricane Katrina, tornadoes, flooding and a Gulf oil spill. And, moreover, I’m not talking about pastors devoting a sentence, or a mere mention to these issues, but rather about devoting the entirety of their sermon on such things.
To me, it represents a form of intellectual laziness. A given pastor can sit at their desk, read a book or two, and effectively repeat most of those tenets on a Sunday morning in their sermon. Books written that are designed to “transcend time” and talk generally about issues that affect a great many people in the world, but still don’t talk about today.
I think it takes quite a bit more thought and analysis to “find God” in the situations of the present, in the aforementioned poverty, wars, and crimes. It requires a lot more bravery on their part to discuss complicated issues that we are exposed to on a daily basis, including abortion and homosexuality. For some reason, these issues are popular to talk about outside of church, but once you are within the doors, they are ignored to avoid offending congregation members.
That is, I argue, what people today need to be hearing. Not what God did 2000+ years ago, but what He’s doing today.
Jul 7th