|
Findings
January/February 2007
A Gene for the Blues
by Marc Wortman
When life hits hard, most people can
roll with the punches. Others, less resilient, react to adversity by ruminating
over it, often becoming anxious or even depressed. The difference may be
genetic.
An international team that included
R. Todd Constable, professor of diagnostic radiology, used an innovative
combination of genetic and behavioral analysis and brain imaging techniques to
examine how genes and stress interact and affect the way the brain works. Their
study, published October 24 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, compared
people with two variants of a receptor gene for serotonin, a neurotransmitter
with many functions, including the regulation of mood and anxiety. People who
have what’s called the short-variant type of this gene experience a decreased
flow of serotonin across neurons; such people may also show more symptoms of
depression in response to stressful events. On the other hand, carriers of the
long variant tend to take stress in stride.
Constable’s team worked with 48
healthy subjects and studied activation patterns in the amygdala and
hippocampus, regions of the brain in which low activation is associated with
depression. The subjects were shown images of happy, sad, fearful, and neutral
faces. Individuals who carried the short variant of the gene—and who had
experienced the worst stress earlier in life—showed less activation
relative to other subjects. (People in this short-variant, high-prior-stress
group were also more likely to ruminate after stressful events.) But subjects
with the short-variant gene and little prior life stress had higher activation
patterns.
“This vulnerability is a good
example of a gene-environment interaction,” says Constable. The short-variant
gene may somehow lead to those brain regions becoming “chronically more
sensitive to stressful events. When additional stress occurs, they are likely
to react in unhealthy ways.”

Baked Scorpions
by Bruce Fellman
The primary component of a living
insect’s tough protective covering is a substance called chitin. Chitin is also
found in the shells of crabs and lobsters. Yet in fossils of these crustaceans,
especially those more than 25 million years old, chitin is absent. In its place
are substances related to kerogens, the long-chain hydrocarbons from which
petroleum is derived.
Scientists once thought the chemical
transformation took place because, during fossilization, molecules in sediments
slowly replace those in an animal’s tissues. But in a paper published in the
November 7 issue of the Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological
Sciences, postdoctoral researcher Neal S. Gupta has shown that an entirely different
metamorphosis is at work. His method? Time-lapse fossilization. “You can
replicate fossilization in the lab,” explains Gupta, a geochemist who worked
with colleagues in England and France to crack the chitin conundrum.
The process of chemical
fossilization was developed in part by Derek Briggs, Yale’s Frederick William
Beinecke Professor of Geology and Geophysics. Inside a gold vessel about the
size of a marking pen, a tiny powdered sample of this organism is subjected to
temperatures of more than 650 degrees F and pressures 700 times those found at sea
level.
“With this technique, we can age a
specimen 25 million years in a day,” Gupta says.
Gupta and his colleagues tested
scorpions, shrimp, and hissing cockroaches. They found that the long-chain
hydrocarbons come from the
organism itself. Lipids—fat
molecules—from living plants and animals are the raw materials from which
time, temperature, and pressure eventually recast a fossil’s molecular
structure.
Understanding aliphatic chemistry—the
chemistry of these relatively simple carbon-based substances—is important
for more than scientific reasons, says Gupta: it’s also important for
understanding fossil fuels. “It’s this aliphatic component that eventually
allows us to drive our cars and heat our homes.”

When Speed is a Savior
by Bruce Fellman
There’s an uncomfortable pressure in
your chest. Pain shoots through your neck and arms. You feel faint, anxious,
and sick to your stomach.
You may be having a heart attack.
Approx-imately 850,000 people in the United States suffered one last year, but
about a third of all heart attacks will respond to rapid treatment to open
total or near-total blockages in one or more of the coronary arteries. For
these people, getting fast treatment is essential.
“The sooner the better,” says Harlan
Krumholz '80, the Harold H. Hines Jr. Profes-sor of Medicine. “Heart muscle can’t
live long without its supply of blood, and every second the heart is deprived
of vital oxygen and nutrients can lead to further and, ultimately, irreversible
damage and patient death. And yet across the country we too often squander
minutes in the treatment of patients with heart attacks.”
In 2004, Krumholz was a member of an
expert panel convened by the American College of Cardiology and the American
Heart Association. The panel stated that patients who are referred for an
emergency balloon angioplasty for a heart attack should be treated within 90
minutes of their arrival at the hospital. But in recent studies, Krumholz and
his colleagues have shown that only about a third of the U.S. hospitals capable
of performing the procedure currently achieve that 90-minute “gold standard"
with even half their patients. However, in a landmark paper published in the
November 30 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, Krumholz—along with
epidemiology professor Elizabeth Bradley and a multidisciplinary research team—showed
precisely how hospitals could dramatically reduce their “door-to-balloon"
times.
The research team had earlier
visited 11 hospitals with some of the nation’s fastest times for an in-depth
investigation of the secrets to their success. For the NEJM study, Krumholz, Bradley, and
colleagues, building on this qualitative research, conducted a Web-based survey
of 365 hospitals on their approach to emergency angioplasty.
The team then correlated these
survey responses with the times the hospitals achieved. (The responses were
based on data hospitals submit to the federal government as part of a national
public reporting program that Krumholz helped develop.)
Among their findings: letting
emergency room doctors activate the catheterization lab—instead of
waiting for a cardiologist to order the activation—saves an average of
8.2 minutes. Establishing a one-call paging system to assemble the angioplasty
team saves 13.8 minutes. And expecting the staff to be in the lab within 20
minutes saves 19.3 minutes.
“The door-to-balloon time is about a
very special choreography between different hospital services,” says Krumholz. “Our
study emphasizes not a single action but a sequence of steps to improve
communication, coordination, and collaboration. What is notable is that each of
the strategies associated with faster times was utilized by only a minority of
the hospitals.”
Krumholz and a group of
cardiologists, emergency room physicians, nurses, and administrators have
already put these strategies into practice at Yale–New Haven Hospital. As
a result, YNHH has become one of the few facilities in the country to meet the
90-minute standard consistently. “Five years ago, door-to-balloon times
averaged over two hours at YNHH,” says Krumholz. “But, now they’re exemplary.”
The time-saving strategies outlined
in the NEJM paper have been adopted by the American College of Cardiology, along with the
American Heart Association and other prominent organizations, as part of a
campaign designed and led by Krumholz to lower door-to-balloon times
nationwide. “Most of these strategies can be implemented right away without
significant cost,” says Krumholz. “If we are successful, we could save 1,000
people a year.”  |