![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I write this to whoever set up this wikipedia page on prions and whoever has been making comments about my appearance on it. I am astounded that people can write as factual material that which has only appeared in the media to hype up particular stories. My "association" with Mark Purdey was largely created by the media. That what is known about my research is largely presented here as misquotations of those media articles is really not appropriate. If Nature only found seven errors in this article they were not looking very hard because frankly, the whole thing should be deleted.
I have deleted the racist comments directed at me by someone who edited these pages. I note that wikipedia has banned them from editing pages here any further which is a good thing. For those who want to know where I work then see this page:
http://www.bath.ac.uk/bio-sci/research/profiles/brown-d.html
In terms of the science, I believe that my contribution (whether it is worth mentioning on wikipedia or not) is to show that this protein is a metal binding protein and the identification of the function of the prion protein. None of this is "speculation". As it currently stands the section on manganese is utterly misleading as it does not correctly state Mark Purdey's theories or provide any real insight into my own (unrelated) work. Some of that work has been publish some time after Mark's untimely death.
I have NEVER at any time believe manganese to be the cause of prion disease. My statements to the BSE enquirey almost ten years ago were in relation to both my work and the possible role of manganese as a risk factor. In this regard "heavy metal poisoning hypothesis" belongs solely to Mark Purdey.
Professor David R. Brown —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.27.69 ( talk) 13:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Grossman's Misquote:
Brown isn't at Oxford. He taught my neurobiology unit at Bath, where he's still listed on the faculty page. 90.196.219.11 18:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Starting at trying to end the article with an opinion about genetics, I'm considering reverting this article back several months and snipping that attempt at a summary. There are three positions in the debate, and they all contain one word. BrewJay ( talk) 09:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
These pages are for commenting on science - not on slurring people's names and making inappropriate comments on their professional standing. There is one particular contributor who continues his tirade against Professor Brown and if it does not stop I will report you! I have deleted your more recent comments (including your very poor English) -- Gonkstem ( talk) 22:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I am not an expert, but the article does not make sense. The truth is the "badly folded form" propogates by causing other forms to refold. But if the badly folded forms are called prions, and also the other forms are called prions, then the paragraph is inaccurate as now worded.
i have re-worded a bit of the 1st paragraph, which should clarify the difference between PrPC and PrPSC, as the prion protein is found in mammalian tissue - it is only after exposure to the misfolded form that the disease is induced.
Jesse.maegan ( talk) 01:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone state a good reason to separate one kind of hoofed animal from another? Brewhaha@edmc.net 09:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC) The section on exotic ungulates is currently red, because it's not in the wiki. Brewhaha@edmc.net 09:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
should the section
"(This isn't dissent per se. It's merely an alternative model for the initial acquisition of Prion related diseases. Its relevance and specificity to bovines is questionable and possible it is more relevant to murine disease acquisition. How it relates to the BSE epidemic is hard to fathom, it certainly may play a role in disease acquisition, however, the plague like transmission is overwhelmingly attributed to the consumption of infectious material. To title this section dissent is kind of baffling as there are many other occurrences which result in the initial incidence of the disease, but none of these account of the aformentioned epidemic. Furthermore, the models which do explain PrP formation biochemical models are just that, biochemical models, proven in a laboratory. They certainly are not epidemiological studies used to build models in the absence of experimental work.)"
even be in the article? it reads more like a forum post replying to the previous paragraph than something that belongs in wikipedia- Lehk 05:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
[1] I tend to think not. It is like a forum post, as you say, but more agreeable than most I've dealt with. Whoever wrote it is trying to find a way to the touted neutral point of view. Brewhaha@edmc.net 09:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the point of this section either - Purdy and Brown have not "dissented" to the existence of prions, they've just expressed some different ideas about the role of metal-binding. There is no controversy over whether PrP binds metal cations or whether these can somewhat influence PrP structure. David Brown places a lot of emphasis on his proposal that metal binding gives PrP enzyme activity and that abnormal binding might lead to a disease state, while Mark Purdy, who was a farmer by profession, was interested in differences in metal ions in the soil and a possible relevance to BSE. Brown was the only established prion researcher who took Purdy's ideas seriously, while Brown's ideas are interesting but have not quite become 'mainstream' and are still mostly considered speculative. I don't really see why these two interesting but minority views warrant a section to themselves. Purple 12:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
-- FFI is more relevant to TSEs. Brewhaha@edmc.net 09:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Fatal Familial Insomnia is genetic. But it is inherited as a one base mutation on the same gene that synthesises PrP, the prion protein. I do not know if attempts to infect organisms with FFI have been successful.
In FFI patients, PrPSc is often not detectable in the brain, yet the disease is transmissible (Tateishi et al., 1995;Collinge et al., 1995) Pikzee 18:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I must also add that a lot of information on prion actionmechanism is speculative. The evidence of prions being infective agents is not yet conclusive. The final "proof" will be infectivity initiated by injection of synthetically produced prion material into an organism. This would be the only way to ensure that no other agents have been introduced. A vocal scientific minority still opposes this.
I think therefore that this article needs a rewrite to take into account these issues. Also a list of references will be useful. I am not competent enough to do this due to lack of biology knowledge. I will add a few external links with more info.--Viz
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040726/full/040726-11.html
What puzzles me is how prions can survive extreme conditions (e.g. autoclaving) that clearly are capable of denaturing proteins. This suggests that something is missing in our understanding of this phenomenon. Beyond that, there are certainly many factors that will influence the folding of proteins. It would seem possible, likely even, that many proteins have alternative folding configurations, and that many non-fatal and less obvious diseases (less obvious compared to CJD) may have their basis in problematic protein folding. --BL
The beginning of paragraph two mentions "mysterious infectious agents" and then has these agents in the singular; visiting the Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease revision history shows that this part did indeed refer specifically to the prions causing C-JD so I've clarified it as such here. --KQ
Isn't fatal familial insomnia genetic? --LDC
is it really Creutzfeldt? I thought it was spelt with a "K"
All of the references I checked spell the names as "Hans Gerhard Creutzfeldt" and "Alfons Maria Jakob". Both are German, and I agree that the initial-C looks odd for a German name, and "Creutz" is not a German word I'm familiar with. Maybe he has a different ancestry or something.
It is Creutzfeldt, from "Kreuz" meaning cross and "Feld" meaning field. As you noticed, the spelling is not correct in today's German, but that is not unusual in names, as they often date back some centuries. Also, "Maria" isn't a usual name for boys these days anymore (except Klaus-Maria Brandauer). -- Magnus Manske
There are exceptional names & words in German that start with "C" rather than with "K". Here are some examples: the city of Chemnitz - that the East Germans called Karl Marx Stadt, but which has been reverted to its old name (just like St. Petersburg has). "Chemie" is the German word for chemistry. "Computer" is very-widely used in German now, even though it is clear that it was adopted from English. The old, old obsolete word was "Rechnenautomat". Look at any good German-English dictionary for lots more examples. At the beginning of words, I have been told that the Germans especially dislike the "kh" combination (too Slavic, as in Khruschev) and they use "ch" instead. Lots of people who live in modern Germany had ancestors who lived in places like Czechoslovakia, Romania, Hungary, Switzerland, Poland, etc., long ago, so there IS some variation due to that.
Somebody turned this page into a disambiguation page and then didn't bother to fix any links to point to the new pages (per our disambiguation guidelines). So I moved this page back to fix the links and added a disambiguation block to the top of this page. -- mav
Welcome to
Wikipedia! We welcome your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as
Prion/Comments) are considered nonsense.
Please refrain from creating nonsense articles. If you want to test things out, edit the
sandbox instead. Take a look at the
welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
Seinfreak37
17:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
If N and P were really made by fork of a normal metabolic pathway, and P would cause negative feedback on N in this process, every organism would quickly infect itself without external P's; it would be sufficient to produce some P's "normally".
The pathogen thought responsible for this disease is not a virus, not a fungus, not a bacteria, but thought to be a prion — an infectious protein. Because of their unique structure, prions are practically invulnerable. They can remain infectious for years in the soil. They are not adequately destroyed by cooking, canning, freezing, usable doses of radiation, digestive enzymes or stomach acid. Even heat sterilization, household bleach and formaldehyde sterilization have little or no effect. One study raised the disturbing question of whether even incineration could guarantee the inactivation of prions.
That study was performed by Paul Brown, medical director for the U.S. Public Health Service, who found prions could remain infectious even after exposure to temperatures over 1000 degrees Fahrenheit ( = 538 degrees celcius). That's hot enough to melt lead. Prions have been called the smallest, most lethal biological entities in the world. [2]
I think you should take a look at this study's abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14697205
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/502391 -- although I note this is circa 2004 and maybe partially outdated.
69.23.124.142 ( talk) 15:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The key to the stability is the crosslinking. In solution, dissolved reagents are sorrounded by a solvent sheath, increasing their reactivity (Debye-Huckel Theory). If the reagent and it's solvent sheath cannot penatrate the into the protein, no reaction will occur.
One way to decompase any organic material is using an oxygen ion-plama (cold non-equilibrium plasmas) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minofd ( talk • contribs) 04:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The following reference offers a serious question for the CDC prescription, because it is in tune with the editorial. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.234.170.75 ( talk) 14:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
If prions can influence mRNA translation, then prions would be neither self-replicating nor exceptions to the so called central dogma of modern biology, but proteins that regulate mRNA translation (at least). That is, if prions do not modify their inactive "cousins" (same primary structure or aminoacids sequence, but diferent subsequent structures due to different folding) in the absence of nucleic acids (something that to the best of my knowledge has not been found).
Also, why do you say that the modification of the struture of a protein does not modify its properties (in particular biological, but those are dependant on the shape of the protein and thus all derivated properties -that is, known characteristics- are modified more or less)? That is why by heating to high temperatures (specially in a forceful manner to proteins whose shape is dependant on low energy bonds) enzymes can be deactivated (rupture of these bonds) and also why if the peptide bonds were not broken it is possible that the enzyme will reactivate (reestablish low energy bonds).
I am by no means studying prions (and so i cannot assure you that it han not been shown that prions can modify their "cousins" in the absence of nucleic acids) but i beleive it is a whortwhile question.
Bernardino
Just because a prion can influence mRNA translation does not mean it's not self-replicating. Also, a prion isn't quite a family of proteins in the same way as say, kinases are. Generally, prion proteins have a normal function, but 'on the side', they have the capability to aggregate and propagate in the prion state. In fact, for several prion proteins, prion propogation actually results in a partial loss of function phenotype.
To address your second question, it was recently shown that URE2, a yeast prion, will form orderd aggregates in vitro at a neutral pH, and that these aggregates retain their infectivity. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16096644&query_hl=16
From what I see, the violation of the central dogma comes from the fact that prions propogate by modifying the conformations of their cousins. I guess I don't really understand how requring nucleic acids to hang around would prove that prions follow the central dogma.
Morwan
Okay, so prions can survive temperatures of up to 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Exactly how does their structure allow them to do this? How are they invulnerable to things like cooking and stomach acid? All proteins should be broken down in your body cells!
Scorpionman
00:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Take all this as thinking aloud with VERY LITTLE to think on, I do not consider to be in a position to understand this becuase I have not experimentated with prions nor reviewed enough to consider it to be a significant amount of what is needed to understand this.
Bernardino
I'm not expert enough on this to do the following justice. Anyone care to add a section on the synthetic prion developed that causes similar brain deterioration in mice? http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/07/30/syntheticprotein.ap/index.html - Tεx τ urε 20:00, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I've read Stan Prusiners original publication on the "synthetic" prion. While the article gives strong support for the prion hypothesis, there are some issues regarding the design of the experiment. Especially the use of mice which overexpressed PRNP about 16-fold is a critical point in the study. I'd like to let the whole thing settle in for a while before adding this information to the article. Dr. Strangelove 13:39, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
brewhaha@ecn.ab.ca: I would favour ignoring that for the jenetik content in artificial mutants, except such things might also hav changes in their metal metabolism. Then again, artificial mutants aren't designed to live in the real world. In the article about TSEs, it goes into more detail about jenetiks, where it should. Maybe that's a better place to discuss synthetic normal prions. 216.234.170.83 06:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it's worth mentioning in the article that the word prion is pronounced "PREE-ON" instead of "PRY-ON" as most people assume... minor detail, but very important to avoid embarassing situations. Brodo 08:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
brewhaha@ecn.ab.ca: No matter what the coiners of the word say, I think the etymology "protein ion" (and pronunciation: pry-on, after ion) fits the spelling and meaning of the word more aptly. Noting the interference from jenetiks on this topic, I'm inclined to remove any divergence into the topic. No nucleic acid. No artificial mutants. I think the notes about autoclavure paint a very sharp picture against this group of diseases being caused by protein, too. At 1000 degrees F, protein doesn't just denature. It decomposes. Changes in protein are an EFFECT. I suspect that a metal ion (manganese?) is flattening the protein.
The pronounciation isn't just a matter of what one thinks is apt. It is of what is universally accepted. The spelling has undergone some degree of literary gymnastics. SteveD. 3rd May 2008. 10:35 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.20.223 ( talk) 00:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The Oxford Dictionary of Phrase and Fable excludes things from the definition of prion like this: prion ... Prions are not visible microscopically, contain no nucleic acid, and are highly resistant to destruction.
Is the Phoenix more than fantasy? Can you blame what you cannot see and name it matter of muscle?
Ions of protein or life you cannot blame. It follows that poison is cause of the lame. 216.234.170.83 06:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
The claim by Prusiner's group to have infected mice with synthetic prions is not as clear-cut as it seems. The mouse line used already had a mutation in its prion protein that causes prion disease. They say around 70% of the animals don't show symptoms within their lifetime, but this does not mean the infectivity is not there; they will have sub-clinical infection.
What they did in this research is to take some synthetic prion protein, containing the same mutation, fold it into a beta sheet form, and inject it. However, it has been shown that you can take an animal with pre-clinical amyloid disease, inject some beta-sheet protein (of any sort) and the disease will be accelerated so that they show symptoms much quicker. The beta-sheet protein seems to 'seed' the pre-existing amyloid so that the disease progresses faster. The research done in this paper is not novel - similar results have been reported before.
The true holy grail of prions is to take some pure, recombinant, wild-type PrPC, do something to it, then inject it into a wild-type mouse, and cause disease. Nothing close to this has been achieved, though I think it will be at some point. -- Purple 01:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
The term prion isn't clearly defined in the article, it seems to suggest that prion proteins exist solely to aggregate, and do not have any normal cell function.
Morwan 18:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
The results of what exactly Nature suggested should be corrected is out... italicize each bullet point once you make the correction. -- user:zanimum
--
Purple
02:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
In order to resolve the 'bias' issue, would it be best to split off the prions in model organisms into its own article? I still think that prions in model organisms should be an integral component of this article: Sup35p has been studied for decades and may be considered the 'best-understood' prion. An expansion of the mammalian section of the article should be done, obviously. Maybe the tables are a bit too much information for a general article... Maybe those should be placed in seperate articles?
Someone want to help me work on a yeast/model organism prion page?
Morwan 23:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
As a major contributor to this article, I feel as if I should chime in on the Nature review, which was generally fair and helpful.
-Noted and corrected
-Clarified that this section refers to yeast prion domains, not to PrP. However, only a part of the Prp-C conformation is alpha-helical; major portions of the protein's structure have not yet been defined.
-Noted and corrected
-I've clarified this point to make it clear that the infectious agent is replicated, propagating the disease state between cells and (potentially) animal hosts.
brewhaha@ecn.ab.ca doesn't think this is a big deal at all. If the phenomenon wasn't a disease, then it wouldn't involve an infectious agent. Someone is splitting hares. 216.234.170.85 12:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
-I've always been skeptical about the Lindquist and Kandel papers linking learning in Apleisa with a prion mechanism. I agree with the reviewer that this discussion point should be deleted.
-I disagree. The yeast prion field is miles ahead of the mammalian prion field, and unlike the mammalian prion diseases, fungal prions are wide-spread in nature, diverse in protein sequence and function, and potentially are adaptive rather than pathological. Readers interested mammalian prions can click through to the many TSE links.
-I disagree (see [4]) and have added this citation to support this claim
I've updated the error table in the outside review article to indicate that the requested revisions have been completed.
yeastbeast
this article, for which you have provided the link, is a lot better.
[5]: Thinking about that a bit more, "propagation" alone, of the trait might work nicely, because I'm getting the impression that "replication" is reserved for jenetiks. 216.234.170.74 13:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
This text (in the "Into" section):
that prions are responsible for a number of previously known but little-understood diseases generally classified under transmissible spongiform encephalopathy diseases (TSEs)
, and the text at the end of the "Prion hypothesis" section"
The degenerative diseases caused by prions are known collectively as "transmissible spongiform encephalopathies" or TSEs
say almost the same thing.
brewhaha@ecn.ab.ca agrees. Why repeat yourself with LESS detail? 216.234.170.85 12:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
This text:
Because of this, scientists reasoned that such proteins could give some sort of evolutionary advantage to their host. - is crap, of coooourse THEY DO, otherwise why loose the genes for the synthesis of the very important vitamin C and keep the ones for the "nasty" prions, plz remove this "great reason of the human mind" of whoever-said-it. I'll see if i can contribute a bit. --
Boris
18:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
brewhaha@ecn.ab.ca says that it definitely bears repeating that genetics were ruled out of the prion hypothesis at inception. They therefore hav nothing to do with a major difference between rats and humans. <opinion> The artificial mutants with a predisposition to produce pathological protein probably hav a difference in their sensitivity to an elemental poison -- a difference in their metabolism of an element. </opinion> 216.234.170.85 12:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
About the advantage thing, even if it's blatantly obvious, there might be layreaders who wouldn't come to that conclusion. -- Natalinasmpf 22:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I also disagree with the reviewer's comment that yeast prions are less interesting than mammalian prions - I think this is itself a biased opinion. Yeast/fungal prions are a very different phenomenon to mammalian prions, i.e. fungal prions are a completely new mechanism of epigenetic inheritance involving many species/proteins, while mammalian prions are just related to a limited range of diseases. I can therefore see why it's difficult to discuss them both in the same article, I think there's an argument for having separate bits for prions (disease) and prions (regulatory mechanism). Not sure how that would work though...-- Purple 19:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
As written, the Genetic material article seems to imply that prions are living organisms and have genetic material that is not DNA. -- JWSchmidt 22:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm the first section explains what a prion is, then later on there's a table of different prion isoforms, with no explanation of what a prion isoform is or how one protein can cause all those diseases. Maybe we need a section explaining prion strains, especially since the existence of strains is one of the things that prion-sceptics get most twitchy about. -- Purple 14:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
brewhaha@ecn.ab.ca: This Flat Earther isn't twitchy about prion strains at all. If I ignore the topic, then jeneticists will eventually occlude the theory of self-propagating protein deformation with a theory of inheritable disease. If I don't ignore it, then I'll find evidence that the strains are malleable, meaning that manipulating the salts of their solution will change their strain. 216.234.170.83 07:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Some references for prion "strains". These "strains" seem to be in some way related to structural/conformation variations in the prion protein.
-- JWSchmidt 15:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Anyone got any objections to me sticking a section in? However it would be from the point of view of mammalian prion disease only unless someone else can do yeast strains-- Purple 19:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
A discussion of strains would be quite helpful. If Purple wants to add a bit about the PrP strain phenomenon (distinction between FFI, CJD and GSS, for instance) I could add a bit about conformational variation in [PSI+] yeast prions (my area of specialty). However, the article is now a bit disjointed with the bulk of the yeast prion information in a separate article, yet retaining the technical discussion of yeast prion structural features. Perhaps prion strains should be a small, non-technical section with a link to a more comprehensive article. Yeastbeast 08:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
brewhaha@ecn.ab.ca: I must've gotten the idea for putting most of the jenetics under TSEs from you. 216.234.170.83 07:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
One of the most remarkable features of prion disease is the existence of distinct prion strains with well-defined heritable properties. These strains were originally characterized by incubation time and resultant neuropathology (Bruce et al., 1992), but they can also be differentiated on the basis of PrPSc distribution in the brain and physicochemical properties of PrPSc such as resistance to proteases and how they have been glycosylated - their 'glycoform ratio' (reviewed in: Bruce et al., 1996). As different prion strains can be serially propagated in mice with the same Prnp genotype, they can not be encoded by the primary sequence of PrP. It is now thought that strain specificity is determined by PrP conformation and glycosylation. Different PrP conformers could interact with varying efficiencies and glycosylation may influence where in the brain a strain may target (Collinge et al., 1996;DeArmond et al., 1997). It is known that different cell types may glycosylate proteins differently, therefore particular PrPSc glycoforms might replicate most favourably in those cells expressing a similar PrP glycoform. This regional targeting could also explain the differences in incubation times between various strains with targeting of more critical brain regions resulting in shorter incubation periods. Pikzee 17:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
"Prion-related protein"? I thought PrP stands for Protease-Resistant Protein. Someone please clarify and maybe even make an appropriate link from the acronym disambiguation page PRP. Alex.g 17:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
brewhaha@ecn.ab.ca My orijinal impression of the word, "protein ion", (which I pronounce pry-on, despite Webster and the IPA, which disagree, so that I'm tempted to delete one or fix the other) relates to the binding of copper to it as if the protein wer charjed. I'm using flat prions for sick prions and I'll use twisted prions for healthy prions if it comes up. Burn the alphabet soup. 216.234.170.85 22:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
actually, PrP stands for "proteinaceous particle" as coined by Prusiner in order to distinguish PrPSC from conventional viruses (Prusiner et al 1982). Jesse.maegan ( talk) 01:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Biology is not my strong point, but when a cow dies of BSE, and if its remains are eaten by another cow, should the Prion protein not have been destroyed when the original cow died (maybe by proteolysis) and should it not be digested in the other cow's stomach? I just don't get how the endogenous Prion still sits in its abnormally conformed shape even after the host has died? Anyone?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Alexis Brooke M 04:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Can prions really be said to instance the inheritance of acquired characteristics?
brewhaha@ecn.ab.ca doesn't think so. If I'm not mistaken, the only vector for acquired characteristics other than the DNA of your cells is the DNA of your mother's mitochondria, which come strictly from your mother, and these prions haven't been shown to influence DNA. They are not mutajens. 216.234.170.85 12:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I am certainly not expert in this field but I think I understand this article to say that PrPSc is a protein coded for by dna as is any other protein.
The fact that the form of the prion is in some way contagious does not affect the offspring of an infected organism, one whose dna does not itself code for the prion itself, or does it? Jfmxl 03:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
brewhaha@ecn.ab.ca: That's another vote for somehow making it clear that this topic is not about genetics without deleting references to genetic experiments, which is exactly what I would do if this were a personal web page. DNA codes for prions, and it doesn't encode their shape. I hope that's a principle, because I'm looking for a way to find it. Hmmm. DNA does not encode the folding or shape of protein. It seems to be false according to the part about jenetiks under TSEs, but I can't rule out the possibility that the prions it is talking about involve a different amino acid sequence. 216.234.170.83 07:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
the begining of a lifeform, evolution before our very eyes? 81.159.158.247 16:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
During last years there were showed that other proteins can form amyloid fibrils which can seed native proteins making them change structure. Means these amyloid fibrils are proteinaceous infectious particles. Some of these proteins can even form different strains [6] So can we call such proteins prions? Or prion is only PrP and it is only one of amyloidogenic proteins like AmyloidBeta, IAPP, TTR which are also related to some diseases, or insulin, which can can behave similar to prions in certain conditions, but by now it was not involved in amyloid diseases?. V.S.
[7]: In its coinage, prion is PrPSC or beta amyloid. I hesitate to use "prion" in a positive context for normal function (if I can figure that out, if any), because of the coinage, so I might work it like this:
PrPSC: Beta Amyloid.
PrP: prion (I won't write TLAs unless I really can't think of something pronounsable).
PrP:C: normal prion.
Beta Amyloid is usually conjoined with plaque. 216.234.170.74 13:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Beta-amyloid tends to refer to the peptide involved in alzheimers disease, and thus isn't really related to prions.
Other amyloid diseases are not infectious. A bit of amyloid from a someone with a non-prion disease cannot spark off the disease in a healthy person; a prion can - that is the key difference. There are other proteins than PrP that can form prions (i.e. that are truly infectious), but the only ones we know of are in yeast/fungi. You also need to bear in mind that 'amyloid' itself (beta-sheet protein fibrils) is not necessary for prion disease - it seems to build up as a kind of by-product. No-one knows what the actual infectious form looks like, or why other amyloid-forming proteins don't have this infectious form.
In my mind, the prion is the actual infectious form, which is not necessarily PrPSc (PrPSc is the name for the amyloid form of PrP). PrPC is the 'healthy' form of PrP, while PrP on its own refers to any structure of PrP. I would say that PrP is prion protein, while 'prion' alone means specifically the infectious form. Purple 13:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the nomenclature of the various forms of PrP is still debated amongst prion researchers. For clarification, I've listed below just a few of the different names for some of the isoforms of PrP as outlined by Prof Charles Weissmann in his excellent review, The State of the Prion (Nature Reviews Microbiology 2, 861-871 (2004)).
PrPC
The physiologically occurring, mainly GPI-linked form of PrP, or prion protein, that can be glycosylated on one or both of two asparagine residues with a variety of glycans. As shown by NMR and X-ray crystallography, it is rich in alpha-helical structure and contains only a little beta-sheet structure.
PrPSc
An isoform of PrPC that is almost invariably detected in TSE-infected tissues and cells. It comprises a carboxy-proximal segment of about 140 residues that is resistant to defined conditions of PK treatment. The term PrPSc is used by some interchangeably with prion, a usage that should be avoided. PrPSc designates a structure, prion is a functional concept. The implication that a particular form of PrP is the only essential constituent of the prion remains to be proven.
PrP27-30
The PrP fragment remaining after controlled PK digestion of PrPSc. - Contrary to popular belief PrPsc is not entirely resistant to protease digestion, but instead has a protease-resistant core. (Pikzee)
PrP*
A hypothetical isoform of PrP that is the essential component of the TSE agent or prion.
Prnp
The gene encoding PrP
rPrP
Denotes recombinant PrP. When produced in Escherichia coli it lacks the GPI anchor and the glycan residues.
Pikzee 17:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
the "umbrella term" for amyloid-forming particles such as those seen in alzheimer's, parkinson's, huntington's, and prion-related diseases is "amyloidogenic synaptopathies".
Jesse.maegan ( talk) 02:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
This statement is in the Fungal Prions section:
"This definition is controversial, since these proteins were not initially labelled as prions due to their infectivity, but because of their amyloid nature. It was not untill later that the potential for infectivity was discovered, and it is still not clear if infection occurs naturally."
Would you care to justify that? Long before they were determined to be prions, URE2 and PSI were studied because of their non-mendelian inheritance, which has been determined to be a consequence of their infectivity.
Morwan 01:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
brewhaha@ecn.ab.ca Two sentences near the start of this article hav TSEs as explicit subjects. I've set them off with . I also want to take out the bit about Lamarkian Evolution, because the example cited does not seem to reach DNA. It only goes as far as biological maladaptation. I'd like to believe in Lamarkian evolution, too, and I don't know of a mechanism for it that isn't mutagenic or that doesn't involve spermicidal or ovicidal effects.
I saw some passive voice in the article that isn't necessary, so I doubt that anyone has gone over this with Grammatik. I'm hoping that I can drop the required grade level with no significant change in meaning. Otherwise, there'll be too much shock at suddently being able to understand the article when someone gets to the part about dissent. I'm expecting complaints from Grammatik about the acronyms, so I'll use them once and thereafter try to spell things out. 216.234.170.83 08:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
[8]: In Neuroinflammation in Alzheimer's disease and prion disease, I found support for both my speculation that prions relate to inflammation (immune system) and an addendum to a remark I made about Alzheimer's. As of yet, neither TSEs article nor prion article mention this neurodejenerativ disease. 216.234.170.74 12:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
BTW, I like Wiley's interface to their own abstracts more than NIH.
In paragraph fifteen of Brown's work, it explicitly says "There is currently no evidence that this manganese bound prion protein is infectious", so whoever was trying to say that Brown supports the protein-propagated cause of protease resistance was sorely misled. Brewhaha@edmc.net 20:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Why is that so? Is it because the information is wrong, or is it someone's idea of a joke?
brewhaha@ecn.ab.ca: Maybe you should ask yourself why the whole section about "proposed mechanism of prion propagation" disappeared _without_ tags for warning.
My version's going on bionet.
216.234.170.65
20:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
brewhaha@ecn.ab.ca: The paragraph you mention clearly relates to encephalopathies TSEs, but not diseased prions, which are not supposed to propagate with genetic reproduction. Even though they apparently do in the article about TSEs, the phenomenon is very rare. But really, when you talk about prions, you are invoking the topic of non-genetic propagation of biological characteristics.
I'm learning why copywriters normally get paid. As I activate and simplify the sentences to make this article more readable, some of them are actually getting redundant, repetitive and dogmatic, and I didn't like them to begin with, so I'm glad someone's watching, because on the first pass of my revision, I'm doing very little to the content. Just that part about TSEs and another bit about Lamarckian evolution. I'll let the change in style sink in for a while.
As for the bias in my section about dissent, no other explanation allows for this disease to survive incineration. And I think I will expose some bias under a veil when it comes to passive voice. 216.234.170.65 18:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the right place to put my question, but I'm doing a research project on the Kuru disease and I'd like to know what exactly prions do that cause the brain to get "spongy".
Now, from reading the Prion article, I get that the PrP^Sc protein contains a lot more of the amino acid structure called "beta sheets" than the normal PrP^C proteins. Now assuming that HuPrP^Sc kuru protein is somewhat related to the PrP^Sc protein, these "beta sheets" allow the proteins to form insoluble fibrils called amyloid aggregations. How do these fibres cause problems? I'm only a grade 10 student, so I'd like a somewhat simplified answer so that I can understand what you are saying without having to research every word I don't understand. Your help is appreciated.
brewhaha@ecn.ab.ca: Amyloid aggregations have been found in Alzheimer's, too. Even with the revisions I'm submitting, this article has a grade 11-13 reading level according to mechanical scores. I've made my version just a bit easier to read than an insurance policy, and it's difficult for me to see if I'm incorporating all of the revisions I mean to, because Grammatik (my style checker) isn't compatible with the markup here. 216.234.170.65 20:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Very basically put, the loss of the PrPC form of the protein results in the death of the cell. in most cells this is not noticable because the body replaces its cells any way, however this process does not occur in the brain, consequently small holes are left in the brain where the cells have died leaving the sponge like appearence. A.guinness ( talk) 00:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
PrP-knockout mice live. That doesn't contradict your assertion that losing common prion would be deadly. If I were to assume you to be correct, then I would wonder if PrP-knockout mice are missing all proteins found in amyloid tissue. BrewJay ( talk) 23:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I notice that over time the article gradually seemed to concentrate more and more on BSE and its variants and leave out the other prion diseases. I think that it is useful to include them for the reader so they can see that this covers a wide range of diseases, and not just the BSE/TSE type. I have put the summary list at the bottom which existed in shortened form when the article was first started.-- ReasonIsBest 17:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know if the prions that are considered human pathogens have ever been genetically mapped out and their protein functions understood? I am interested in those that affect the brain specifically
Recently Japanese scientists at the Obihiro University of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine developed one of the first strategies to delaying the onset of disease. They found that sulfated glycosaminoglycans (GAGs) and sulfated glycans inhibit formation of protease resistant protein in cells and prolong the incubation time of scrapie-infected animals. Among the glycopyranosides and their polymers examined, monomeric 4-sulfo-N-acetyl-glucosamine (4SGN), and two glycopolymers, poly-4SGN and poly-6-sulfo-N-acetyl-glucosamine (poly-6SGN), inhibited PrPSc formation with 50% effective doses below 20 microg/ml, and their inhibitory effect became more evident with consecutive treatments. Structural comparisons suggested that a combination of an N-acetyl group at C-2 and an M-sulfate group at either O-4 or O-6 on glucopyranoside might be involved in the inhibition of PrPSc formation. Furthermore, polymeric but not monomeric 6SGN inhibited PrPSc formation, suggesting the importance of a polyvalent configuration in its effect. These results indicate that the synthetic sulfated glycosides are useful not only for the analysis of structure-activity relationship of GAGs but also for the development of therapeutics for prion diseases. [2]
Is it bad? -- Filll 01:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
the alphabet soup in it, either. Maybe it should be tersened a lot. Brewhaha@edmc.net 09:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone state a good reason to separate one kind of hoofed animal from another? Brewhaha@edmc.net 09:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC) The section on exotic ungulates is currently red, because it's not in the wiki. Brewhaha@edmc.net 09:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
"deshpande protease resistant protein" offers four hits on three different researchers, none of them topical, none of them dating to before the eighties. I seem to remember a different name for the source of this concept. BrewJay ( talk) 20:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
A minor change, but I corrected Mark Purdey's name from "Purdy". He was a member of the Purdey gunsmith family. Jonathan Silverlight 23:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
While prions exist there is still much debate whether they are the causal agents of disease. In a recent stucdy conducted by Johns Hopkins 12% or their researchers reported they show no evidence they do cause illness and suggest other germs may be at fault. Whether or not you agree with this, enough people disagree to at least present an opposing viewpoint in this article. If you can do so for HIV and vaccines you can do so for prions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.142.45.67 ( talk) 2007-02-24T21:04:40
Even if prions can resist digestion and make it into the bloodstream, how the heck do they get past the blood-brain barrier? --- Seven of Nine 19:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Pikzee 17:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, obviously I should have spelt this out more clearly. You're right, the prions are not traveling down the nerves in the same way as ions. The prions replicate in the spleen and are carried by the FDCs. FDCs accumulate high levels of prions (PrPSc) during the infection and essentially "pass them" to the splenic nerves. It's not known exactly how this happens but it has been shown that neuroinvasion is dependant on this process and occurs more quickly the closer the FDCs and the nerves are to each other. PrPc is present on the cell membrane of the nerves and it recycles between the membrane and internal compartments of the cell. Once it comes into contact with PrPsc from the FDCs, the conversion reaction may occur - whether this happens in the cell membrane or internal compartments is still unclear. The newly formed PrPSc can then go on to recruit and convert more PrPc within the cell into the abnormal infectious form. Through this continuing process, the prions may propagate or "travel" through the cell and pass from one cell to the next mediating the neuroinvasion. Pikzee ( talk) 14:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This article possibly contains
original research. (October 2007) |
Kuru and vCJD are known to be transmitted to humans who have eaten the meat or brains of infected animals (or, in the case of Kuru, infected humans).
This raises the question: how can prions, which are merely proteins, make their way through the gut and into the brain, where they cause the dreaded spongiform encephalitis? Proteins normally are digested down to amino acids in the gut, and transported through the gut epithelium by amino acid transporters. If that was the case for prions, they would no longer be prions by the time they were absorbed through the gut wall, and would no longer be infectious.
It's not externally sourced. It follows a lot of minor metabolic pathways. To top it off, it doesn't provide a way to verify the possibilities in action. :
First of all, prions resist digestion in the gut. They remain intact proteins and are known to accumulate in the distal ileum. They resist digestion because they are extremely resistant to all forms of degradation. They also resist destruction by high-temperature autoclave and by formaldehyde, and in fact, by most means tested so far. In fact, cases of vCJD have been known to be contracted from properly sterilized surgical instruments.
But, even if prions are not digested, they should not be absorbed across the intestinal wall. In fact, they circumvent the normal process of intestinal absorption by passing into the gut-associated lymphoid tissue (GALT). Related to this, it seems that chronic inflammation predisposes to prion infectivity, e.g. in rheumatoid arthritis, type-I diabetes, or Crohn’s disease.
The cellular basis for prion transmigration from the gut through the GALT into the lymphoid system is still poorly understood. Membranous epithelial cells (M cells) are believed to be the key sites of antigen sampling for the mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT), and function as major ports of entry for pathogens from the gut by transport across the epithelium. Immune cells are crucially involved in the process of neuroinvasion following oral administration: mature follicular dendritic cells (FDCs), located in Peyer's patch, could be crucial for the transmission of prions from the gastrointestinal tract. FDCs, being mobile, could function as a bridge between the gut lumen and the lymphoid organs, where the prions can replicate. FDCs could transport prions from their sites of replication to peripheral nerves in lymphoid organs, thereby enabling the process of neuroinvasion. citation needed
"... Fatal Familial Insomnia, a British disease that cultural preferences may cause."
This whole sentence not only sounds strange to me, I also couldn't find any proof for it. Even the Wikipedia article says that the first case was found in Italy and there are cases worldwide. Also, it is genetic, so which British cultural preference causes that?
BrewJay ( talk) 22:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Hai, work this intom the page: " NIAID Scientists Characterize the Most Infectious Prion Protein Particles" (2005). -lysdexia 04:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's quite important for the nature of the infectious agent - the identity of which is still debatable. Even in highly purified infectious fractions, only one in 105 PrPSc particles is infectious (Bolton and Bendheim, 1991). The most infectious prion protein particles have now been shown to be non-fibrillar particles containing 14 – 28 PrP molecules with infectivity significantly reduced in oligomers larger and smaller than this (Silveira et al., 2005). This is also in agreement with an emerging theme in other neurodegenerative disorders (such as Alzheimer's Disease) that the formation of amyloid may actually be a protective mechanism used by the cell to limit the ability of a toxic protein to trigger more conversion.
Pikzee
18:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Might naturally-occurring "prion"-like protein forms be partially responsible for the natural cell differentiation in embryos?
Might "relatives" of modern prions have been responsible for the development of eukaryotic organisms from prokaryotes? Or otherwise have played a major role in evolutionary history?
Someone is trying to say that transgenic mice lead the way to a cure. Maybe they do, but I'm inclined to say that they'll lead to a prevention more quickly. Let me put it this way: Remission is the wrong word for a mouse that was born to avoid the disease. Brewhaha@edmc.net 11:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Someone qualified that statement to the nearly meaningless point, so I marked it for snippage. Brewhaha@edmc.net 15:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
This seems to be a newer addition to the article. Perhaps someone with expertise on prions should review this section. Additionally, I'm not sure if this is poor wording, but the phrase It also follows from his work that carnivorous animals may be hazardous, is odd. Hazardous or at hazard? W. B. Wilson 05:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Are a bit muddled. Can people stick to citing the most authoritative/original/useful reference for key topics, i.e. the way that a scientific publication would be referenced. I did a thesis on prions so I have most of the necessary references and I'll try to reorganise them but I'm not very good at wiki-speak!! Purple 22:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
A nifty tool for that is here. Plug in one number from a pubmed search and it'll grab the rest. BrewJay ( talk) 23:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
What is this about sterilizing with "1N NaOH". I've never seen this notation before. I read the reference (#37 at time of my writing this) and indeed they use "1M NaOH" sometimes and "1N NaOH" other times. If it is an esoteric notation, I think we should point to an article about it or clarify it somehow. If it is a typo (perhaps it was a typo in the original reference) then it should be corrected as well. 75.34.53.200 ( talk) 19:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Evidence in favor of a viral hypothesis include: [3]
In the "Viral hypothesis" section, I tagged the above with {{dubious}} with this html comment:
does not logically follow: lack of bacteria etc does not "default" to presence of a virus. Can just as well default to a protein cause. Is this a wrong summary of the cite? The cite is: Baker & Ridley (1996). Prion Disease. New Jersey: Humana Press. 0-89603-342-2. - 84user ( talk) 02:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC) (fixed my italics - 84user ( talk) 03:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC))
lack of proof is not proof of innocence, in science you cnnot simply 'default' back to the theory that best suits you but instead must consider all angles until conclusive proof exists! (well pointed out) A.guinness ( talk) 01:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I can see how genetics might be relevant to understanding whether it is true that protein can transmit deformations in protein, and when it mentions other manifestations of protease resistant protein and spongiform encephalopathy, I lose track of the point. Those topics are too jeneral. They hav their own articles. If you're interested in the whole category, fine, but this article isn't a category. BrewJay ( talk) 20:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
In dietary requirements, Manganese is in the microgram range and Copper is in the milligram range, so Brown's hypothesis that it's easier to get an overdose of Manganese than Copper makes perfect sense. What doesn't make much sense is that protease resistant protein found in amyloid (something like scar tissue) is of the sheet variety, and Copper ions increase the proportion of that. Are there other examples of where in-vivo effects and in-vitro effects contrast? BrewJay ( talk) 22:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
C'mon, guys. After I made this thing readable, in come abbreviations to replace understandable terms with things that are neither pronouncable nor easy to type. My grammer and style checker can do nothing with new words. I can't even tell it that they're nouns. PrP is an abbreviation for three words. You can also say "diseased prion" or "cellular prion". For variety and the art of being understood and remembered, it's also nice to say "sheet prion" or "helix protein" once you've established what those mean. I don't mind introducing abbreviations, but using them throughout the text makes this stuff look like some ugly version of math. BrewJay ( talk) 00:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
wow, the removal, or should I say crossing out of the genetics section seems to be useless, as that is a real reason for prions to form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaked122 ( talk • contribs) 16:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
So here is a conspiratorial thought. Are prions covered by the Biological Weapons Convention? or the Chemical Weapons Convention? Mrdthree ( talk) 12:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I know how paranoid I am, but could this ever be used for biological warfare?
Lu na ke et 21:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't have the time to read the whole article, but: Are prions not only in the brain but in the circulatory system as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dale S. Satre ( talk • contribs) 17:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Do the prions attack random neurons, or are the cells they attack predetemined (specific)? --Dale S. Satre 18:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Jesse.maegan ( talk) 02:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the line "Prion diseases are the only known diseases that can be sporadic, genetic, or infectious," isn't cancer another such disease? Its Wikipedia page clearly includes all three of those transmission types as well. Perfundle ( talk) 23:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Dr. De Meirleir just published the results of a study on severe, bedridden M.E. patients in Norway. He presented his findings last week at a conference in London.
My question is, should the possible connection to CFS be mentioned on this Wikipedia article on Prions? If so, where would it fit in?
Here are the links to his presentations and summary of his study:
Thanks!
Kosovokelly ( talk) 10:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Prion/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
A Whether cause, effect or both, I think even the way the article has developed is an example of how collaboration can make a broad and understandable introduction to a topic as difficult to understand as a biochemical one. Brewhaha@edmc.net 09:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 09:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 21:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
pmid10716712
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I write this to whoever set up this wikipedia page on prions and whoever has been making comments about my appearance on it. I am astounded that people can write as factual material that which has only appeared in the media to hype up particular stories. My "association" with Mark Purdey was largely created by the media. That what is known about my research is largely presented here as misquotations of those media articles is really not appropriate. If Nature only found seven errors in this article they were not looking very hard because frankly, the whole thing should be deleted.
I have deleted the racist comments directed at me by someone who edited these pages. I note that wikipedia has banned them from editing pages here any further which is a good thing. For those who want to know where I work then see this page:
http://www.bath.ac.uk/bio-sci/research/profiles/brown-d.html
In terms of the science, I believe that my contribution (whether it is worth mentioning on wikipedia or not) is to show that this protein is a metal binding protein and the identification of the function of the prion protein. None of this is "speculation". As it currently stands the section on manganese is utterly misleading as it does not correctly state Mark Purdey's theories or provide any real insight into my own (unrelated) work. Some of that work has been publish some time after Mark's untimely death.
I have NEVER at any time believe manganese to be the cause of prion disease. My statements to the BSE enquirey almost ten years ago were in relation to both my work and the possible role of manganese as a risk factor. In this regard "heavy metal poisoning hypothesis" belongs solely to Mark Purdey.
Professor David R. Brown —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.27.69 ( talk) 13:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Grossman's Misquote:
Brown isn't at Oxford. He taught my neurobiology unit at Bath, where he's still listed on the faculty page. 90.196.219.11 18:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Starting at trying to end the article with an opinion about genetics, I'm considering reverting this article back several months and snipping that attempt at a summary. There are three positions in the debate, and they all contain one word. BrewJay ( talk) 09:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
These pages are for commenting on science - not on slurring people's names and making inappropriate comments on their professional standing. There is one particular contributor who continues his tirade against Professor Brown and if it does not stop I will report you! I have deleted your more recent comments (including your very poor English) -- Gonkstem ( talk) 22:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I am not an expert, but the article does not make sense. The truth is the "badly folded form" propogates by causing other forms to refold. But if the badly folded forms are called prions, and also the other forms are called prions, then the paragraph is inaccurate as now worded.
i have re-worded a bit of the 1st paragraph, which should clarify the difference between PrPC and PrPSC, as the prion protein is found in mammalian tissue - it is only after exposure to the misfolded form that the disease is induced.
Jesse.maegan ( talk) 01:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone state a good reason to separate one kind of hoofed animal from another? Brewhaha@edmc.net 09:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC) The section on exotic ungulates is currently red, because it's not in the wiki. Brewhaha@edmc.net 09:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
should the section
"(This isn't dissent per se. It's merely an alternative model for the initial acquisition of Prion related diseases. Its relevance and specificity to bovines is questionable and possible it is more relevant to murine disease acquisition. How it relates to the BSE epidemic is hard to fathom, it certainly may play a role in disease acquisition, however, the plague like transmission is overwhelmingly attributed to the consumption of infectious material. To title this section dissent is kind of baffling as there are many other occurrences which result in the initial incidence of the disease, but none of these account of the aformentioned epidemic. Furthermore, the models which do explain PrP formation biochemical models are just that, biochemical models, proven in a laboratory. They certainly are not epidemiological studies used to build models in the absence of experimental work.)"
even be in the article? it reads more like a forum post replying to the previous paragraph than something that belongs in wikipedia- Lehk 05:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
[1] I tend to think not. It is like a forum post, as you say, but more agreeable than most I've dealt with. Whoever wrote it is trying to find a way to the touted neutral point of view. Brewhaha@edmc.net 09:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the point of this section either - Purdy and Brown have not "dissented" to the existence of prions, they've just expressed some different ideas about the role of metal-binding. There is no controversy over whether PrP binds metal cations or whether these can somewhat influence PrP structure. David Brown places a lot of emphasis on his proposal that metal binding gives PrP enzyme activity and that abnormal binding might lead to a disease state, while Mark Purdy, who was a farmer by profession, was interested in differences in metal ions in the soil and a possible relevance to BSE. Brown was the only established prion researcher who took Purdy's ideas seriously, while Brown's ideas are interesting but have not quite become 'mainstream' and are still mostly considered speculative. I don't really see why these two interesting but minority views warrant a section to themselves. Purple 12:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
-- FFI is more relevant to TSEs. Brewhaha@edmc.net 09:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Fatal Familial Insomnia is genetic. But it is inherited as a one base mutation on the same gene that synthesises PrP, the prion protein. I do not know if attempts to infect organisms with FFI have been successful.
In FFI patients, PrPSc is often not detectable in the brain, yet the disease is transmissible (Tateishi et al., 1995;Collinge et al., 1995) Pikzee 18:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I must also add that a lot of information on prion actionmechanism is speculative. The evidence of prions being infective agents is not yet conclusive. The final "proof" will be infectivity initiated by injection of synthetically produced prion material into an organism. This would be the only way to ensure that no other agents have been introduced. A vocal scientific minority still opposes this.
I think therefore that this article needs a rewrite to take into account these issues. Also a list of references will be useful. I am not competent enough to do this due to lack of biology knowledge. I will add a few external links with more info.--Viz
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040726/full/040726-11.html
What puzzles me is how prions can survive extreme conditions (e.g. autoclaving) that clearly are capable of denaturing proteins. This suggests that something is missing in our understanding of this phenomenon. Beyond that, there are certainly many factors that will influence the folding of proteins. It would seem possible, likely even, that many proteins have alternative folding configurations, and that many non-fatal and less obvious diseases (less obvious compared to CJD) may have their basis in problematic protein folding. --BL
The beginning of paragraph two mentions "mysterious infectious agents" and then has these agents in the singular; visiting the Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease revision history shows that this part did indeed refer specifically to the prions causing C-JD so I've clarified it as such here. --KQ
Isn't fatal familial insomnia genetic? --LDC
is it really Creutzfeldt? I thought it was spelt with a "K"
All of the references I checked spell the names as "Hans Gerhard Creutzfeldt" and "Alfons Maria Jakob". Both are German, and I agree that the initial-C looks odd for a German name, and "Creutz" is not a German word I'm familiar with. Maybe he has a different ancestry or something.
It is Creutzfeldt, from "Kreuz" meaning cross and "Feld" meaning field. As you noticed, the spelling is not correct in today's German, but that is not unusual in names, as they often date back some centuries. Also, "Maria" isn't a usual name for boys these days anymore (except Klaus-Maria Brandauer). -- Magnus Manske
There are exceptional names & words in German that start with "C" rather than with "K". Here are some examples: the city of Chemnitz - that the East Germans called Karl Marx Stadt, but which has been reverted to its old name (just like St. Petersburg has). "Chemie" is the German word for chemistry. "Computer" is very-widely used in German now, even though it is clear that it was adopted from English. The old, old obsolete word was "Rechnenautomat". Look at any good German-English dictionary for lots more examples. At the beginning of words, I have been told that the Germans especially dislike the "kh" combination (too Slavic, as in Khruschev) and they use "ch" instead. Lots of people who live in modern Germany had ancestors who lived in places like Czechoslovakia, Romania, Hungary, Switzerland, Poland, etc., long ago, so there IS some variation due to that.
Somebody turned this page into a disambiguation page and then didn't bother to fix any links to point to the new pages (per our disambiguation guidelines). So I moved this page back to fix the links and added a disambiguation block to the top of this page. -- mav
Welcome to
Wikipedia! We welcome your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as
Prion/Comments) are considered nonsense.
Please refrain from creating nonsense articles. If you want to test things out, edit the
sandbox instead. Take a look at the
welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
Seinfreak37
17:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
If N and P were really made by fork of a normal metabolic pathway, and P would cause negative feedback on N in this process, every organism would quickly infect itself without external P's; it would be sufficient to produce some P's "normally".
The pathogen thought responsible for this disease is not a virus, not a fungus, not a bacteria, but thought to be a prion — an infectious protein. Because of their unique structure, prions are practically invulnerable. They can remain infectious for years in the soil. They are not adequately destroyed by cooking, canning, freezing, usable doses of radiation, digestive enzymes or stomach acid. Even heat sterilization, household bleach and formaldehyde sterilization have little or no effect. One study raised the disturbing question of whether even incineration could guarantee the inactivation of prions.
That study was performed by Paul Brown, medical director for the U.S. Public Health Service, who found prions could remain infectious even after exposure to temperatures over 1000 degrees Fahrenheit ( = 538 degrees celcius). That's hot enough to melt lead. Prions have been called the smallest, most lethal biological entities in the world. [2]
I think you should take a look at this study's abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14697205
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/502391 -- although I note this is circa 2004 and maybe partially outdated.
69.23.124.142 ( talk) 15:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The key to the stability is the crosslinking. In solution, dissolved reagents are sorrounded by a solvent sheath, increasing their reactivity (Debye-Huckel Theory). If the reagent and it's solvent sheath cannot penatrate the into the protein, no reaction will occur.
One way to decompase any organic material is using an oxygen ion-plama (cold non-equilibrium plasmas) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minofd ( talk • contribs) 04:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The following reference offers a serious question for the CDC prescription, because it is in tune with the editorial. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.234.170.75 ( talk) 14:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
If prions can influence mRNA translation, then prions would be neither self-replicating nor exceptions to the so called central dogma of modern biology, but proteins that regulate mRNA translation (at least). That is, if prions do not modify their inactive "cousins" (same primary structure or aminoacids sequence, but diferent subsequent structures due to different folding) in the absence of nucleic acids (something that to the best of my knowledge has not been found).
Also, why do you say that the modification of the struture of a protein does not modify its properties (in particular biological, but those are dependant on the shape of the protein and thus all derivated properties -that is, known characteristics- are modified more or less)? That is why by heating to high temperatures (specially in a forceful manner to proteins whose shape is dependant on low energy bonds) enzymes can be deactivated (rupture of these bonds) and also why if the peptide bonds were not broken it is possible that the enzyme will reactivate (reestablish low energy bonds).
I am by no means studying prions (and so i cannot assure you that it han not been shown that prions can modify their "cousins" in the absence of nucleic acids) but i beleive it is a whortwhile question.
Bernardino
Just because a prion can influence mRNA translation does not mean it's not self-replicating. Also, a prion isn't quite a family of proteins in the same way as say, kinases are. Generally, prion proteins have a normal function, but 'on the side', they have the capability to aggregate and propagate in the prion state. In fact, for several prion proteins, prion propogation actually results in a partial loss of function phenotype.
To address your second question, it was recently shown that URE2, a yeast prion, will form orderd aggregates in vitro at a neutral pH, and that these aggregates retain their infectivity. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16096644&query_hl=16
From what I see, the violation of the central dogma comes from the fact that prions propogate by modifying the conformations of their cousins. I guess I don't really understand how requring nucleic acids to hang around would prove that prions follow the central dogma.
Morwan
Okay, so prions can survive temperatures of up to 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Exactly how does their structure allow them to do this? How are they invulnerable to things like cooking and stomach acid? All proteins should be broken down in your body cells!
Scorpionman
00:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Take all this as thinking aloud with VERY LITTLE to think on, I do not consider to be in a position to understand this becuase I have not experimentated with prions nor reviewed enough to consider it to be a significant amount of what is needed to understand this.
Bernardino
I'm not expert enough on this to do the following justice. Anyone care to add a section on the synthetic prion developed that causes similar brain deterioration in mice? http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/07/30/syntheticprotein.ap/index.html - Tεx τ urε 20:00, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I've read Stan Prusiners original publication on the "synthetic" prion. While the article gives strong support for the prion hypothesis, there are some issues regarding the design of the experiment. Especially the use of mice which overexpressed PRNP about 16-fold is a critical point in the study. I'd like to let the whole thing settle in for a while before adding this information to the article. Dr. Strangelove 13:39, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
brewhaha@ecn.ab.ca: I would favour ignoring that for the jenetik content in artificial mutants, except such things might also hav changes in their metal metabolism. Then again, artificial mutants aren't designed to live in the real world. In the article about TSEs, it goes into more detail about jenetiks, where it should. Maybe that's a better place to discuss synthetic normal prions. 216.234.170.83 06:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it's worth mentioning in the article that the word prion is pronounced "PREE-ON" instead of "PRY-ON" as most people assume... minor detail, but very important to avoid embarassing situations. Brodo 08:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
brewhaha@ecn.ab.ca: No matter what the coiners of the word say, I think the etymology "protein ion" (and pronunciation: pry-on, after ion) fits the spelling and meaning of the word more aptly. Noting the interference from jenetiks on this topic, I'm inclined to remove any divergence into the topic. No nucleic acid. No artificial mutants. I think the notes about autoclavure paint a very sharp picture against this group of diseases being caused by protein, too. At 1000 degrees F, protein doesn't just denature. It decomposes. Changes in protein are an EFFECT. I suspect that a metal ion (manganese?) is flattening the protein.
The pronounciation isn't just a matter of what one thinks is apt. It is of what is universally accepted. The spelling has undergone some degree of literary gymnastics. SteveD. 3rd May 2008. 10:35 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.20.223 ( talk) 00:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The Oxford Dictionary of Phrase and Fable excludes things from the definition of prion like this: prion ... Prions are not visible microscopically, contain no nucleic acid, and are highly resistant to destruction.
Is the Phoenix more than fantasy? Can you blame what you cannot see and name it matter of muscle?
Ions of protein or life you cannot blame. It follows that poison is cause of the lame. 216.234.170.83 06:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
The claim by Prusiner's group to have infected mice with synthetic prions is not as clear-cut as it seems. The mouse line used already had a mutation in its prion protein that causes prion disease. They say around 70% of the animals don't show symptoms within their lifetime, but this does not mean the infectivity is not there; they will have sub-clinical infection.
What they did in this research is to take some synthetic prion protein, containing the same mutation, fold it into a beta sheet form, and inject it. However, it has been shown that you can take an animal with pre-clinical amyloid disease, inject some beta-sheet protein (of any sort) and the disease will be accelerated so that they show symptoms much quicker. The beta-sheet protein seems to 'seed' the pre-existing amyloid so that the disease progresses faster. The research done in this paper is not novel - similar results have been reported before.
The true holy grail of prions is to take some pure, recombinant, wild-type PrPC, do something to it, then inject it into a wild-type mouse, and cause disease. Nothing close to this has been achieved, though I think it will be at some point. -- Purple 01:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
The term prion isn't clearly defined in the article, it seems to suggest that prion proteins exist solely to aggregate, and do not have any normal cell function.
Morwan 18:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
The results of what exactly Nature suggested should be corrected is out... italicize each bullet point once you make the correction. -- user:zanimum
--
Purple
02:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
In order to resolve the 'bias' issue, would it be best to split off the prions in model organisms into its own article? I still think that prions in model organisms should be an integral component of this article: Sup35p has been studied for decades and may be considered the 'best-understood' prion. An expansion of the mammalian section of the article should be done, obviously. Maybe the tables are a bit too much information for a general article... Maybe those should be placed in seperate articles?
Someone want to help me work on a yeast/model organism prion page?
Morwan 23:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
As a major contributor to this article, I feel as if I should chime in on the Nature review, which was generally fair and helpful.
-Noted and corrected
-Clarified that this section refers to yeast prion domains, not to PrP. However, only a part of the Prp-C conformation is alpha-helical; major portions of the protein's structure have not yet been defined.
-Noted and corrected
-I've clarified this point to make it clear that the infectious agent is replicated, propagating the disease state between cells and (potentially) animal hosts.
brewhaha@ecn.ab.ca doesn't think this is a big deal at all. If the phenomenon wasn't a disease, then it wouldn't involve an infectious agent. Someone is splitting hares. 216.234.170.85 12:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
-I've always been skeptical about the Lindquist and Kandel papers linking learning in Apleisa with a prion mechanism. I agree with the reviewer that this discussion point should be deleted.
-I disagree. The yeast prion field is miles ahead of the mammalian prion field, and unlike the mammalian prion diseases, fungal prions are wide-spread in nature, diverse in protein sequence and function, and potentially are adaptive rather than pathological. Readers interested mammalian prions can click through to the many TSE links.
-I disagree (see [4]) and have added this citation to support this claim
I've updated the error table in the outside review article to indicate that the requested revisions have been completed.
yeastbeast
this article, for which you have provided the link, is a lot better.
[5]: Thinking about that a bit more, "propagation" alone, of the trait might work nicely, because I'm getting the impression that "replication" is reserved for jenetiks. 216.234.170.74 13:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
This text (in the "Into" section):
that prions are responsible for a number of previously known but little-understood diseases generally classified under transmissible spongiform encephalopathy diseases (TSEs)
, and the text at the end of the "Prion hypothesis" section"
The degenerative diseases caused by prions are known collectively as "transmissible spongiform encephalopathies" or TSEs
say almost the same thing.
brewhaha@ecn.ab.ca agrees. Why repeat yourself with LESS detail? 216.234.170.85 12:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
This text:
Because of this, scientists reasoned that such proteins could give some sort of evolutionary advantage to their host. - is crap, of coooourse THEY DO, otherwise why loose the genes for the synthesis of the very important vitamin C and keep the ones for the "nasty" prions, plz remove this "great reason of the human mind" of whoever-said-it. I'll see if i can contribute a bit. --
Boris
18:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
brewhaha@ecn.ab.ca says that it definitely bears repeating that genetics were ruled out of the prion hypothesis at inception. They therefore hav nothing to do with a major difference between rats and humans. <opinion> The artificial mutants with a predisposition to produce pathological protein probably hav a difference in their sensitivity to an elemental poison -- a difference in their metabolism of an element. </opinion> 216.234.170.85 12:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
About the advantage thing, even if it's blatantly obvious, there might be layreaders who wouldn't come to that conclusion. -- Natalinasmpf 22:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I also disagree with the reviewer's comment that yeast prions are less interesting than mammalian prions - I think this is itself a biased opinion. Yeast/fungal prions are a very different phenomenon to mammalian prions, i.e. fungal prions are a completely new mechanism of epigenetic inheritance involving many species/proteins, while mammalian prions are just related to a limited range of diseases. I can therefore see why it's difficult to discuss them both in the same article, I think there's an argument for having separate bits for prions (disease) and prions (regulatory mechanism). Not sure how that would work though...-- Purple 19:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
As written, the Genetic material article seems to imply that prions are living organisms and have genetic material that is not DNA. -- JWSchmidt 22:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm the first section explains what a prion is, then later on there's a table of different prion isoforms, with no explanation of what a prion isoform is or how one protein can cause all those diseases. Maybe we need a section explaining prion strains, especially since the existence of strains is one of the things that prion-sceptics get most twitchy about. -- Purple 14:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
brewhaha@ecn.ab.ca: This Flat Earther isn't twitchy about prion strains at all. If I ignore the topic, then jeneticists will eventually occlude the theory of self-propagating protein deformation with a theory of inheritable disease. If I don't ignore it, then I'll find evidence that the strains are malleable, meaning that manipulating the salts of their solution will change their strain. 216.234.170.83 07:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Some references for prion "strains". These "strains" seem to be in some way related to structural/conformation variations in the prion protein.
-- JWSchmidt 15:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Anyone got any objections to me sticking a section in? However it would be from the point of view of mammalian prion disease only unless someone else can do yeast strains-- Purple 19:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
A discussion of strains would be quite helpful. If Purple wants to add a bit about the PrP strain phenomenon (distinction between FFI, CJD and GSS, for instance) I could add a bit about conformational variation in [PSI+] yeast prions (my area of specialty). However, the article is now a bit disjointed with the bulk of the yeast prion information in a separate article, yet retaining the technical discussion of yeast prion structural features. Perhaps prion strains should be a small, non-technical section with a link to a more comprehensive article. Yeastbeast 08:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
brewhaha@ecn.ab.ca: I must've gotten the idea for putting most of the jenetics under TSEs from you. 216.234.170.83 07:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
One of the most remarkable features of prion disease is the existence of distinct prion strains with well-defined heritable properties. These strains were originally characterized by incubation time and resultant neuropathology (Bruce et al., 1992), but they can also be differentiated on the basis of PrPSc distribution in the brain and physicochemical properties of PrPSc such as resistance to proteases and how they have been glycosylated - their 'glycoform ratio' (reviewed in: Bruce et al., 1996). As different prion strains can be serially propagated in mice with the same Prnp genotype, they can not be encoded by the primary sequence of PrP. It is now thought that strain specificity is determined by PrP conformation and glycosylation. Different PrP conformers could interact with varying efficiencies and glycosylation may influence where in the brain a strain may target (Collinge et al., 1996;DeArmond et al., 1997). It is known that different cell types may glycosylate proteins differently, therefore particular PrPSc glycoforms might replicate most favourably in those cells expressing a similar PrP glycoform. This regional targeting could also explain the differences in incubation times between various strains with targeting of more critical brain regions resulting in shorter incubation periods. Pikzee 17:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
"Prion-related protein"? I thought PrP stands for Protease-Resistant Protein. Someone please clarify and maybe even make an appropriate link from the acronym disambiguation page PRP. Alex.g 17:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
brewhaha@ecn.ab.ca My orijinal impression of the word, "protein ion", (which I pronounce pry-on, despite Webster and the IPA, which disagree, so that I'm tempted to delete one or fix the other) relates to the binding of copper to it as if the protein wer charjed. I'm using flat prions for sick prions and I'll use twisted prions for healthy prions if it comes up. Burn the alphabet soup. 216.234.170.85 22:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
actually, PrP stands for "proteinaceous particle" as coined by Prusiner in order to distinguish PrPSC from conventional viruses (Prusiner et al 1982). Jesse.maegan ( talk) 01:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Biology is not my strong point, but when a cow dies of BSE, and if its remains are eaten by another cow, should the Prion protein not have been destroyed when the original cow died (maybe by proteolysis) and should it not be digested in the other cow's stomach? I just don't get how the endogenous Prion still sits in its abnormally conformed shape even after the host has died? Anyone?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Alexis Brooke M 04:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Can prions really be said to instance the inheritance of acquired characteristics?
brewhaha@ecn.ab.ca doesn't think so. If I'm not mistaken, the only vector for acquired characteristics other than the DNA of your cells is the DNA of your mother's mitochondria, which come strictly from your mother, and these prions haven't been shown to influence DNA. They are not mutajens. 216.234.170.85 12:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I am certainly not expert in this field but I think I understand this article to say that PrPSc is a protein coded for by dna as is any other protein.
The fact that the form of the prion is in some way contagious does not affect the offspring of an infected organism, one whose dna does not itself code for the prion itself, or does it? Jfmxl 03:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
brewhaha@ecn.ab.ca: That's another vote for somehow making it clear that this topic is not about genetics without deleting references to genetic experiments, which is exactly what I would do if this were a personal web page. DNA codes for prions, and it doesn't encode their shape. I hope that's a principle, because I'm looking for a way to find it. Hmmm. DNA does not encode the folding or shape of protein. It seems to be false according to the part about jenetiks under TSEs, but I can't rule out the possibility that the prions it is talking about involve a different amino acid sequence. 216.234.170.83 07:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
the begining of a lifeform, evolution before our very eyes? 81.159.158.247 16:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
During last years there were showed that other proteins can form amyloid fibrils which can seed native proteins making them change structure. Means these amyloid fibrils are proteinaceous infectious particles. Some of these proteins can even form different strains [6] So can we call such proteins prions? Or prion is only PrP and it is only one of amyloidogenic proteins like AmyloidBeta, IAPP, TTR which are also related to some diseases, or insulin, which can can behave similar to prions in certain conditions, but by now it was not involved in amyloid diseases?. V.S.
[7]: In its coinage, prion is PrPSC or beta amyloid. I hesitate to use "prion" in a positive context for normal function (if I can figure that out, if any), because of the coinage, so I might work it like this:
PrPSC: Beta Amyloid.
PrP: prion (I won't write TLAs unless I really can't think of something pronounsable).
PrP:C: normal prion.
Beta Amyloid is usually conjoined with plaque. 216.234.170.74 13:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Beta-amyloid tends to refer to the peptide involved in alzheimers disease, and thus isn't really related to prions.
Other amyloid diseases are not infectious. A bit of amyloid from a someone with a non-prion disease cannot spark off the disease in a healthy person; a prion can - that is the key difference. There are other proteins than PrP that can form prions (i.e. that are truly infectious), but the only ones we know of are in yeast/fungi. You also need to bear in mind that 'amyloid' itself (beta-sheet protein fibrils) is not necessary for prion disease - it seems to build up as a kind of by-product. No-one knows what the actual infectious form looks like, or why other amyloid-forming proteins don't have this infectious form.
In my mind, the prion is the actual infectious form, which is not necessarily PrPSc (PrPSc is the name for the amyloid form of PrP). PrPC is the 'healthy' form of PrP, while PrP on its own refers to any structure of PrP. I would say that PrP is prion protein, while 'prion' alone means specifically the infectious form. Purple 13:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the nomenclature of the various forms of PrP is still debated amongst prion researchers. For clarification, I've listed below just a few of the different names for some of the isoforms of PrP as outlined by Prof Charles Weissmann in his excellent review, The State of the Prion (Nature Reviews Microbiology 2, 861-871 (2004)).
PrPC
The physiologically occurring, mainly GPI-linked form of PrP, or prion protein, that can be glycosylated on one or both of two asparagine residues with a variety of glycans. As shown by NMR and X-ray crystallography, it is rich in alpha-helical structure and contains only a little beta-sheet structure.
PrPSc
An isoform of PrPC that is almost invariably detected in TSE-infected tissues and cells. It comprises a carboxy-proximal segment of about 140 residues that is resistant to defined conditions of PK treatment. The term PrPSc is used by some interchangeably with prion, a usage that should be avoided. PrPSc designates a structure, prion is a functional concept. The implication that a particular form of PrP is the only essential constituent of the prion remains to be proven.
PrP27-30
The PrP fragment remaining after controlled PK digestion of PrPSc. - Contrary to popular belief PrPsc is not entirely resistant to protease digestion, but instead has a protease-resistant core. (Pikzee)
PrP*
A hypothetical isoform of PrP that is the essential component of the TSE agent or prion.
Prnp
The gene encoding PrP
rPrP
Denotes recombinant PrP. When produced in Escherichia coli it lacks the GPI anchor and the glycan residues.
Pikzee 17:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
the "umbrella term" for amyloid-forming particles such as those seen in alzheimer's, parkinson's, huntington's, and prion-related diseases is "amyloidogenic synaptopathies".
Jesse.maegan ( talk) 02:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
This statement is in the Fungal Prions section:
"This definition is controversial, since these proteins were not initially labelled as prions due to their infectivity, but because of their amyloid nature. It was not untill later that the potential for infectivity was discovered, and it is still not clear if infection occurs naturally."
Would you care to justify that? Long before they were determined to be prions, URE2 and PSI were studied because of their non-mendelian inheritance, which has been determined to be a consequence of their infectivity.
Morwan 01:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
brewhaha@ecn.ab.ca Two sentences near the start of this article hav TSEs as explicit subjects. I've set them off with . I also want to take out the bit about Lamarkian Evolution, because the example cited does not seem to reach DNA. It only goes as far as biological maladaptation. I'd like to believe in Lamarkian evolution, too, and I don't know of a mechanism for it that isn't mutagenic or that doesn't involve spermicidal or ovicidal effects.
I saw some passive voice in the article that isn't necessary, so I doubt that anyone has gone over this with Grammatik. I'm hoping that I can drop the required grade level with no significant change in meaning. Otherwise, there'll be too much shock at suddently being able to understand the article when someone gets to the part about dissent. I'm expecting complaints from Grammatik about the acronyms, so I'll use them once and thereafter try to spell things out. 216.234.170.83 08:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
[8]: In Neuroinflammation in Alzheimer's disease and prion disease, I found support for both my speculation that prions relate to inflammation (immune system) and an addendum to a remark I made about Alzheimer's. As of yet, neither TSEs article nor prion article mention this neurodejenerativ disease. 216.234.170.74 12:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
BTW, I like Wiley's interface to their own abstracts more than NIH.
In paragraph fifteen of Brown's work, it explicitly says "There is currently no evidence that this manganese bound prion protein is infectious", so whoever was trying to say that Brown supports the protein-propagated cause of protease resistance was sorely misled. Brewhaha@edmc.net 20:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Why is that so? Is it because the information is wrong, or is it someone's idea of a joke?
brewhaha@ecn.ab.ca: Maybe you should ask yourself why the whole section about "proposed mechanism of prion propagation" disappeared _without_ tags for warning.
My version's going on bionet.
216.234.170.65
20:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
brewhaha@ecn.ab.ca: The paragraph you mention clearly relates to encephalopathies TSEs, but not diseased prions, which are not supposed to propagate with genetic reproduction. Even though they apparently do in the article about TSEs, the phenomenon is very rare. But really, when you talk about prions, you are invoking the topic of non-genetic propagation of biological characteristics.
I'm learning why copywriters normally get paid. As I activate and simplify the sentences to make this article more readable, some of them are actually getting redundant, repetitive and dogmatic, and I didn't like them to begin with, so I'm glad someone's watching, because on the first pass of my revision, I'm doing very little to the content. Just that part about TSEs and another bit about Lamarckian evolution. I'll let the change in style sink in for a while.
As for the bias in my section about dissent, no other explanation allows for this disease to survive incineration. And I think I will expose some bias under a veil when it comes to passive voice. 216.234.170.65 18:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the right place to put my question, but I'm doing a research project on the Kuru disease and I'd like to know what exactly prions do that cause the brain to get "spongy".
Now, from reading the Prion article, I get that the PrP^Sc protein contains a lot more of the amino acid structure called "beta sheets" than the normal PrP^C proteins. Now assuming that HuPrP^Sc kuru protein is somewhat related to the PrP^Sc protein, these "beta sheets" allow the proteins to form insoluble fibrils called amyloid aggregations. How do these fibres cause problems? I'm only a grade 10 student, so I'd like a somewhat simplified answer so that I can understand what you are saying without having to research every word I don't understand. Your help is appreciated.
brewhaha@ecn.ab.ca: Amyloid aggregations have been found in Alzheimer's, too. Even with the revisions I'm submitting, this article has a grade 11-13 reading level according to mechanical scores. I've made my version just a bit easier to read than an insurance policy, and it's difficult for me to see if I'm incorporating all of the revisions I mean to, because Grammatik (my style checker) isn't compatible with the markup here. 216.234.170.65 20:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Very basically put, the loss of the PrPC form of the protein results in the death of the cell. in most cells this is not noticable because the body replaces its cells any way, however this process does not occur in the brain, consequently small holes are left in the brain where the cells have died leaving the sponge like appearence. A.guinness ( talk) 00:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
PrP-knockout mice live. That doesn't contradict your assertion that losing common prion would be deadly. If I were to assume you to be correct, then I would wonder if PrP-knockout mice are missing all proteins found in amyloid tissue. BrewJay ( talk) 23:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I notice that over time the article gradually seemed to concentrate more and more on BSE and its variants and leave out the other prion diseases. I think that it is useful to include them for the reader so they can see that this covers a wide range of diseases, and not just the BSE/TSE type. I have put the summary list at the bottom which existed in shortened form when the article was first started.-- ReasonIsBest 17:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know if the prions that are considered human pathogens have ever been genetically mapped out and their protein functions understood? I am interested in those that affect the brain specifically
Recently Japanese scientists at the Obihiro University of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine developed one of the first strategies to delaying the onset of disease. They found that sulfated glycosaminoglycans (GAGs) and sulfated glycans inhibit formation of protease resistant protein in cells and prolong the incubation time of scrapie-infected animals. Among the glycopyranosides and their polymers examined, monomeric 4-sulfo-N-acetyl-glucosamine (4SGN), and two glycopolymers, poly-4SGN and poly-6-sulfo-N-acetyl-glucosamine (poly-6SGN), inhibited PrPSc formation with 50% effective doses below 20 microg/ml, and their inhibitory effect became more evident with consecutive treatments. Structural comparisons suggested that a combination of an N-acetyl group at C-2 and an M-sulfate group at either O-4 or O-6 on glucopyranoside might be involved in the inhibition of PrPSc formation. Furthermore, polymeric but not monomeric 6SGN inhibited PrPSc formation, suggesting the importance of a polyvalent configuration in its effect. These results indicate that the synthetic sulfated glycosides are useful not only for the analysis of structure-activity relationship of GAGs but also for the development of therapeutics for prion diseases. [2]
Is it bad? -- Filll 01:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
the alphabet soup in it, either. Maybe it should be tersened a lot. Brewhaha@edmc.net 09:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone state a good reason to separate one kind of hoofed animal from another? Brewhaha@edmc.net 09:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC) The section on exotic ungulates is currently red, because it's not in the wiki. Brewhaha@edmc.net 09:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
"deshpande protease resistant protein" offers four hits on three different researchers, none of them topical, none of them dating to before the eighties. I seem to remember a different name for the source of this concept. BrewJay ( talk) 20:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
A minor change, but I corrected Mark Purdey's name from "Purdy". He was a member of the Purdey gunsmith family. Jonathan Silverlight 23:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
While prions exist there is still much debate whether they are the causal agents of disease. In a recent stucdy conducted by Johns Hopkins 12% or their researchers reported they show no evidence they do cause illness and suggest other germs may be at fault. Whether or not you agree with this, enough people disagree to at least present an opposing viewpoint in this article. If you can do so for HIV and vaccines you can do so for prions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.142.45.67 ( talk) 2007-02-24T21:04:40
Even if prions can resist digestion and make it into the bloodstream, how the heck do they get past the blood-brain barrier? --- Seven of Nine 19:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Pikzee 17:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, obviously I should have spelt this out more clearly. You're right, the prions are not traveling down the nerves in the same way as ions. The prions replicate in the spleen and are carried by the FDCs. FDCs accumulate high levels of prions (PrPSc) during the infection and essentially "pass them" to the splenic nerves. It's not known exactly how this happens but it has been shown that neuroinvasion is dependant on this process and occurs more quickly the closer the FDCs and the nerves are to each other. PrPc is present on the cell membrane of the nerves and it recycles between the membrane and internal compartments of the cell. Once it comes into contact with PrPsc from the FDCs, the conversion reaction may occur - whether this happens in the cell membrane or internal compartments is still unclear. The newly formed PrPSc can then go on to recruit and convert more PrPc within the cell into the abnormal infectious form. Through this continuing process, the prions may propagate or "travel" through the cell and pass from one cell to the next mediating the neuroinvasion. Pikzee ( talk) 14:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This article possibly contains
original research. (October 2007) |
Kuru and vCJD are known to be transmitted to humans who have eaten the meat or brains of infected animals (or, in the case of Kuru, infected humans).
This raises the question: how can prions, which are merely proteins, make their way through the gut and into the brain, where they cause the dreaded spongiform encephalitis? Proteins normally are digested down to amino acids in the gut, and transported through the gut epithelium by amino acid transporters. If that was the case for prions, they would no longer be prions by the time they were absorbed through the gut wall, and would no longer be infectious.
It's not externally sourced. It follows a lot of minor metabolic pathways. To top it off, it doesn't provide a way to verify the possibilities in action. :
First of all, prions resist digestion in the gut. They remain intact proteins and are known to accumulate in the distal ileum. They resist digestion because they are extremely resistant to all forms of degradation. They also resist destruction by high-temperature autoclave and by formaldehyde, and in fact, by most means tested so far. In fact, cases of vCJD have been known to be contracted from properly sterilized surgical instruments.
But, even if prions are not digested, they should not be absorbed across the intestinal wall. In fact, they circumvent the normal process of intestinal absorption by passing into the gut-associated lymphoid tissue (GALT). Related to this, it seems that chronic inflammation predisposes to prion infectivity, e.g. in rheumatoid arthritis, type-I diabetes, or Crohn’s disease.
The cellular basis for prion transmigration from the gut through the GALT into the lymphoid system is still poorly understood. Membranous epithelial cells (M cells) are believed to be the key sites of antigen sampling for the mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT), and function as major ports of entry for pathogens from the gut by transport across the epithelium. Immune cells are crucially involved in the process of neuroinvasion following oral administration: mature follicular dendritic cells (FDCs), located in Peyer's patch, could be crucial for the transmission of prions from the gastrointestinal tract. FDCs, being mobile, could function as a bridge between the gut lumen and the lymphoid organs, where the prions can replicate. FDCs could transport prions from their sites of replication to peripheral nerves in lymphoid organs, thereby enabling the process of neuroinvasion. citation needed
"... Fatal Familial Insomnia, a British disease that cultural preferences may cause."
This whole sentence not only sounds strange to me, I also couldn't find any proof for it. Even the Wikipedia article says that the first case was found in Italy and there are cases worldwide. Also, it is genetic, so which British cultural preference causes that?
BrewJay ( talk) 22:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Hai, work this intom the page: " NIAID Scientists Characterize the Most Infectious Prion Protein Particles" (2005). -lysdexia 04:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's quite important for the nature of the infectious agent - the identity of which is still debatable. Even in highly purified infectious fractions, only one in 105 PrPSc particles is infectious (Bolton and Bendheim, 1991). The most infectious prion protein particles have now been shown to be non-fibrillar particles containing 14 – 28 PrP molecules with infectivity significantly reduced in oligomers larger and smaller than this (Silveira et al., 2005). This is also in agreement with an emerging theme in other neurodegenerative disorders (such as Alzheimer's Disease) that the formation of amyloid may actually be a protective mechanism used by the cell to limit the ability of a toxic protein to trigger more conversion.
Pikzee
18:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Might naturally-occurring "prion"-like protein forms be partially responsible for the natural cell differentiation in embryos?
Might "relatives" of modern prions have been responsible for the development of eukaryotic organisms from prokaryotes? Or otherwise have played a major role in evolutionary history?
Someone is trying to say that transgenic mice lead the way to a cure. Maybe they do, but I'm inclined to say that they'll lead to a prevention more quickly. Let me put it this way: Remission is the wrong word for a mouse that was born to avoid the disease. Brewhaha@edmc.net 11:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Someone qualified that statement to the nearly meaningless point, so I marked it for snippage. Brewhaha@edmc.net 15:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
This seems to be a newer addition to the article. Perhaps someone with expertise on prions should review this section. Additionally, I'm not sure if this is poor wording, but the phrase It also follows from his work that carnivorous animals may be hazardous, is odd. Hazardous or at hazard? W. B. Wilson 05:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Are a bit muddled. Can people stick to citing the most authoritative/original/useful reference for key topics, i.e. the way that a scientific publication would be referenced. I did a thesis on prions so I have most of the necessary references and I'll try to reorganise them but I'm not very good at wiki-speak!! Purple 22:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
A nifty tool for that is here. Plug in one number from a pubmed search and it'll grab the rest. BrewJay ( talk) 23:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
What is this about sterilizing with "1N NaOH". I've never seen this notation before. I read the reference (#37 at time of my writing this) and indeed they use "1M NaOH" sometimes and "1N NaOH" other times. If it is an esoteric notation, I think we should point to an article about it or clarify it somehow. If it is a typo (perhaps it was a typo in the original reference) then it should be corrected as well. 75.34.53.200 ( talk) 19:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Evidence in favor of a viral hypothesis include: [3]
In the "Viral hypothesis" section, I tagged the above with {{dubious}} with this html comment:
does not logically follow: lack of bacteria etc does not "default" to presence of a virus. Can just as well default to a protein cause. Is this a wrong summary of the cite? The cite is: Baker & Ridley (1996). Prion Disease. New Jersey: Humana Press. 0-89603-342-2. - 84user ( talk) 02:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC) (fixed my italics - 84user ( talk) 03:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC))
lack of proof is not proof of innocence, in science you cnnot simply 'default' back to the theory that best suits you but instead must consider all angles until conclusive proof exists! (well pointed out) A.guinness ( talk) 01:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I can see how genetics might be relevant to understanding whether it is true that protein can transmit deformations in protein, and when it mentions other manifestations of protease resistant protein and spongiform encephalopathy, I lose track of the point. Those topics are too jeneral. They hav their own articles. If you're interested in the whole category, fine, but this article isn't a category. BrewJay ( talk) 20:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
In dietary requirements, Manganese is in the microgram range and Copper is in the milligram range, so Brown's hypothesis that it's easier to get an overdose of Manganese than Copper makes perfect sense. What doesn't make much sense is that protease resistant protein found in amyloid (something like scar tissue) is of the sheet variety, and Copper ions increase the proportion of that. Are there other examples of where in-vivo effects and in-vitro effects contrast? BrewJay ( talk) 22:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
C'mon, guys. After I made this thing readable, in come abbreviations to replace understandable terms with things that are neither pronouncable nor easy to type. My grammer and style checker can do nothing with new words. I can't even tell it that they're nouns. PrP is an abbreviation for three words. You can also say "diseased prion" or "cellular prion". For variety and the art of being understood and remembered, it's also nice to say "sheet prion" or "helix protein" once you've established what those mean. I don't mind introducing abbreviations, but using them throughout the text makes this stuff look like some ugly version of math. BrewJay ( talk) 00:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
wow, the removal, or should I say crossing out of the genetics section seems to be useless, as that is a real reason for prions to form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaked122 ( talk • contribs) 16:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
So here is a conspiratorial thought. Are prions covered by the Biological Weapons Convention? or the Chemical Weapons Convention? Mrdthree ( talk) 12:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I know how paranoid I am, but could this ever be used for biological warfare?
Lu na ke et 21:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't have the time to read the whole article, but: Are prions not only in the brain but in the circulatory system as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dale S. Satre ( talk • contribs) 17:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Do the prions attack random neurons, or are the cells they attack predetemined (specific)? --Dale S. Satre 18:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Jesse.maegan ( talk) 02:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the line "Prion diseases are the only known diseases that can be sporadic, genetic, or infectious," isn't cancer another such disease? Its Wikipedia page clearly includes all three of those transmission types as well. Perfundle ( talk) 23:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Dr. De Meirleir just published the results of a study on severe, bedridden M.E. patients in Norway. He presented his findings last week at a conference in London.
My question is, should the possible connection to CFS be mentioned on this Wikipedia article on Prions? If so, where would it fit in?
Here are the links to his presentations and summary of his study:
Thanks!
Kosovokelly ( talk) 10:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Prion/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
A Whether cause, effect or both, I think even the way the article has developed is an example of how collaboration can make a broad and understandable introduction to a topic as difficult to understand as a biochemical one. Brewhaha@edmc.net 09:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 09:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 21:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
pmid10716712
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)