US-based Osiris Therapeutics has received approval from Canada Health for its drug that uses mesenchymal stem cells to treat a common bone transplant disease.

A medical treatment that uses stem cells derived from bone marrow has just been approved in Canada. The drug, Prochymal, has already been used to treat children for a type of immune disease arising during bone marrow transplantation. The makers of Prochymal, US-based Osiris Therapeutics Inc., claims that theirs is the first ever stem cell-based drug to be approved.

But this isn’t your typical stem cell therapy. Unlike other treatments being developed that aim to replace dying or damaged cells, Prochymal uses stem cells to suppress a dangerous immune response.

Bone marrow transplants are necessary when a person’s own bone marrow has been destroyed due to chemotherapy or radiation therapy to treat cancer. The donated bone marrow is rich with the stem cells that give rise to all of the body’s blood cells. But anyone receiving bone marrow from a donor runs the risk that the infection-fighting white blood cells in the donor’s marrow will attack the host, a condition called graft-versus-host disease. Steroids can often be used to suppress the attack, but in cases where they are not effective, the disease can cause severe damage to the skin, liver and digestive tract, resulting in death.

Prochymal, which is prepared with bone marrow – or mesenchymal – stem cells, has been used in a small trial to treat children who are suffering from graft-versus-host disease but are not responsive to steroids. The stem cells in Prochymal migrate to areas of white blood cell-induced inflammation to repair the damage, according to Osiris. After extracting bone marrow from donors the stem cells are purified and cultured in the lab to an extent that one donor supplies enough cells for 10,000 doses.

The trial that won Prochymal its approval involved 59 children with graft-versus-host disease who were non-responsive to steroids. Patients were given infusions twice a week for four weeks. Soon after first infusion, 63 percent showed a “clinically meaningful” response (no further details). Researchers then compared survival between responsive and non-responsive groups 28 days following first infusion: 78 percent of the responsive group versus 9 percent of the non-responsive group.

If we do the math we see that 37 of the 59 patients were “responsive” to Prochymal while 22 were not. And of those 37, 29 survived to day 28 while only 2 did from the non-responsive group. The numbers certainly warrant approval of a last resort treatment, even more so since the group showed no adverse health affects.

We have a long way to go yet, but one day stem cells may be used to replace different kinds of dead or damaged tissue in the body.

So why does a company based in Dulles, VA have to go to Canada to get approval? Well, as promising the results are, they no doubt are surprising to some. In 2009 Prochymal suffered a major setback as two separate trials showed that, while the drug was safe, it failed to improve the condition of patients with graft-versus-host disease. An unperturbed Osiris had made a statement that perhaps, while the drug was ineffective for the entire population, it might work for a small subgroup. The latest trial, ended in 2010, showed us that it is indeed effective for children.

But even with the failed 2009 trials, the FDA isn’t dragging its feet. Prochymal is currently being tested in trials that will assess, not only its ability to mitigate graft-versus-host disease, but Crohn’s Disease as well. Chrohn’s disease is an autoimmune disorder that results in inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract. The FDA has granted Prochymal ‘Fast Track’ status which should speed up the approval process. And perhaps in part due to its approval in Canada, the FDA has also made Prochymal available through ‘Expanded Access,’ which allows the use of an investigational drug to treat patients with immediate need and no other options.

Osiris also has plans to develop Prochymal for the repair of heart tissue following a heart attack, the preservation of pancreatic islet cells in type 1 diabetes, and to repair lung tissue in patients with pulmonary disease.

The source of the cells are healthy adult donors, thus avoiding the formidable controversies surrounding embryo-derived stem cells. Once extracted, the cells are then left to divide in a dish until the total population is enormously increased.

One concern on the minds of potential recipients (and their loved ones) might be the source of those stem cells; that is, from other people. The donors are screened for transmittable diseases and even their medical and “social” histories are evaluated to check for behavioral indicators that mark them as high risk for certain diseases. On top of that, the donors are monitored for developing conditions for up to five years after donation.

As the first of its kind, Prochymal’s approval is a landmark victory for stem cell therapies and regenerative medicine as a whole, and I really think Osiris and their collaborators deserve credit. It appears that they have sifted the data from the two 2009 trials and, with their 2010 trial, turned two wrongs into a right.

[image credits: NASDAQ, Nature, and Healblog]
images: NASDAQ, Nature, and Healblog

Sound Machines 2.0 is Festo's latest effort to create robotic musicians.

The German engineering firm Festo has developed a self-playing robotic string quintet that will listen to a piece of music and generate new musical compositions in various musical styles effortlessly.

Dubbed Sound Machines 2.0, the acoustic ensemble is made up of two violins, a viola, a cello, and a double bass, each consisting of a single string that is modulated by an electric actuator for pitch, a pneumatic cylinder that acts as a hammer to vibrate the string, and a 40 watt speaker. A new composition is generated in a two-stage process. First, a melody played on a keyboard or xylophone is broken down into the pitch, duration, and intensity of each note, and software with various algorithms and compositional rules derived from Conway’s “Game of Life” generates a new composition of a set length. Then, the five robotic instruments receive this new composition, reinterpret it, and listen to one another as they produce an improvisational performance.

Here’s an example of what the robots can produce:

Festo is better known for projects from its Bionic Learning Network, which include amazing animal-inspired robots, such as SmartBird, the elephant trunk-inspired Bionic Handling Assistant and Robotino, AirPenguin and AquaPenguin, AirJelly and AquaJelly, AquaRay and Airacuda (these are just too cool not to mention). But in 2007, the company also experimented with the blending of technology and art when they developed the first Sound Machines, comprised of a string quartet and a drum.

It’s worth taking a look at the Sound Machines 1.0 too:

Essentially, the system’s software is mimicking what composers have done for centuries. In music theory, a motif is a short sequence that becomes the theme of a composition, such as a concerto or opera. A composer starts with a motif and evolves it, morphing and changing it throughout the course of the piece. Part of what makes composers like Mozart, for example, great is their ability to take a simple motif and make magic out of it. But a musical piece is not only about how a motif is handled by a composer. Musicians in a quartet, for instance, also work together to bring the motif in a composition to life, interpreting each instrument’s role in the performance. On a much larger scale, conductors work to bring all of the instruments of an orchestra together into a cohesive whole to emphasize that motif in their vision.

What’s amazing is that the algorithms of Sound Machine 2.0 are achieving many of these efforts in real time to create the same kind of magic.

The team at Festo isn’t the only one interested in robot musicians. Expressive Machines Musical Instruments is an organization that develops machines that play instruments and ran a Kickstarter campaign at the beginning of last year for a band of robots called MARIE. California Institute of the Arts has also employed bots in a human-robot concert that was performed last year. Others are experimenting with robots and music, including jazz legend Pat Metheny and composer David Cope.

The fact that robots can create classical music shouldn’t be too surprising as Western music’s 12-note system is highly mathematical, lending itself to complex algorithmic analysis. Coupled with all the research going into deconstructing the human brain, including how music changes the brain, robotic music seems logical (pun intended). While these early efforts may not sound pleasing to everyone’s ears, it will only be a matter of time before robot produced music become popular. Why? Because software developers have also figured out what makes music popular, as evidenced by the Hit Potential Equation that can predict whether a song will be a hit.

In the not-so-distant future, a system like Sound Machines 2.0 could also turn anyone into a composer. A commercial Orchestra-In-A-Box product may allow a person to play a simple melody and have the robotic instruments create hours of live music. So rather than ripping through your music collection to put together music for a party, you could set the mood for the entire night in under a minute in whatever style you wanted.

In light of this, the true power of this technology may be in the way it places an emphasis on human creativity instead of merely replacing it. Festo could have easily produced a robot that makes music on its own, allowing people just to marvel at what it is capable of. However, the developers specifically chose to have the system respond to direct human input, thereby allowing people to connect to the composition as co-creators with the robots.

Whether Sound Machines 2.0 is merely a cool project or a window into the future of live music remains to be seen, but clearly Festo’s efforts are demonstrating that robots aren’t just about replacing people’s jobs, but in an increasing number of ways, they are empowering human creativity.

[Media: Festo]

[Source: Festo, Ubergizmo]

We’ve just hit Accelerated Tech news number seven, and boy do we feel lucky. It’s been a lot of fun producing these videos for Singularity Hub, and getting our feet wet in the more visual side of news. But we’re still just getting started. Besides planned improvements in production value and editing, Accelerated Tech News is going to continue to innovate, finding the best way to entice viewers to read the full length articles behind the rapid fire presentation. ATN is also paving the way for other Singularity Hub videos which we hope to unveil this summer. Whether it’s quick news, in depth coverage, or something in between, Singularity Hub will continue to be your source for all things science and tech. Things you learn about on Singularity Hub today will be shaping the entire world tomorrow.

Singularity University's synthetic biology incubator program kicked off recently to help three startups achieve long-term success.

A bold, new venture took flight recently with the initiation of the SynBio Startup Launchpad, Singularity University’s inaugural accelerator program in synthetic biology. Aimed at vaulting entrepreneurs with rapid-cycle, low-cost ideas into viable companies, the stipend-assisted program provides a foundation of education, mentoring, resources and space for the startups to develop and build a business. In partnership with Triple Ring Technologies, SynBio is SU’s first incubator program of this type, one that’s modeled after successful accelerator programs, such as Y Combinator.

Competition for the pilot program was steep with 40 startups applying , and in the end, only three companies were selected: Evolutionary Solutions, Modern Meadow, and SoilGene.

Teeming with ambitious ideas and some pretty futuristic potential, synthetic biology is an emerging multidisciplinary field in which the principles of genetic engineering are coupled with genome design software to capitalize on the plummeting cost of DNA analysis and synthesis. The approach is to construct artificial biological systems in a similar way that computer chips are made. The result is a broad array of potential technologies that could lead to a radical transformation across a variety of sectors, including medicine.

The conception and development of the Launchpad incubator has that distinct startup feel, where a handful of people take a great idea and make it into a viable entity at just the right time.

To oversee SynBio, SU recently appointed Sandra Miller as Managing Director of New Venture Development. Sandra was formerly Director in the Labs for Enterprise Creation at the Kauffman Foundation and Managing Director of the Biodesign Program at Stanford. Describing SynBio as an intentionally small program that can be customized to the needs of the companies, she explained that the Launchpad “is absolutely an experiment. She adds, “We will have a lot of lessons from the first program that will help us to think about the best way SU can help companies in potential future programs. It is only four months. In life science, that’s a small timeline, so it will be interesting to see what progress and product development can be accomplished in that time.”"

The program’s selection criteria, according to Sandra, examined, “the scope of what startups could get accomplished in four months. The interview process also looked at the team to get a sense of their value to the company and what each would need over time to add to their team. Other criteria included decision-making abilities, the extent of their commitment, and what they’ve been able to accomplish to date on their own.”

SynBio was conceived by Andrew Hessel, Co-Chair of Biotechnology and Bioinformatics at SU, and John Cumbers, a researcher as the NASA Ames Research Center in synthetic biology. When asked what makes synthetic biology a viable field for startups, Andrew said, “What we’re seeing is a trend toward digital biology…we’ve seen the maturation of bioinformatics to become a more holistic systems biology that is very data intensive. But this is information about life being captured and put into computers. What makes synthetic biology so interesting to me is that it takes this information and uses it to help build living things.” The creation then of the SynBio program was clear. “We see the tremendous success for hardware and software startups all the time, all because of digital technologies. Now we think it’s becoming biotech’s turn to shine, and we’re keen to explore and support the companies entering the space.” For the selection process, Andrew described what was required to make the cut: “We had to see the commitment of the founders shine through the application. They had to have a great idea but even more than this, we had to feel that they really wanted their company to work.”

Commenting on the selection process, John said, “We turned down great ideas, we turned down poor market analysis…the essential criterion was the team.” He explained that product development in synthetic biology is possible for startups because of the decreased cost of reading DNA, adding, “Whereas it cost $3 billion to sequence the first human genome over a decade ago, now it costs $10k or less. Similarly with synthetic biology, the first synthetic genome cost $20 million to make, but the cost of DNA synthesis is also falling exponentially. Cheap DNA gives biologists the time to spend on design of DNA, rather than construction.”

“We think we’ve got three great teams” John said and shared what makes each of them exciting.

Evolutionary Solutions is developing an oligo- to genome-scale synthesis device. The team is comprised of two ambitious undergraduates from Georgia Tech, Kettner Griswold and Paul Sebexen. Though they are the two youngest SynBio participants, Kettner and Paul have already made significant accomplishments in their young careers.

John: “They have seen the pain of slow and expensive DNA synthesis, and they want to turn the market on its head. They represent a real force for disruption in that market.”

Modern Meadow is targeting the food and textile industries by applying tissue engineering methodologies to produce a novel class of biomaterials. Andras Forgacs, one of the company’s founders, also co-founded Organovo, which pioneered 3D bioprinting and successfully transitioned from startup to publicly traded company with their first commercial bioprinter. Andras is also a co-founder of The Resolution Project, a non-profit aimed at developing socially responsible young leaders.

John: “Modern Meadow offers a great example of a consumer-facing biology product. I want a belt made of Modern Meadow leather.”

SoilGene is applying metagenomic and bioinformatic strategies toward land surveillance to make natural resource discovery faster and cheaper and assess geographic areas for their agricultural potential. The SoilGene team consists of Zachary Apte, a UCSF biophysics graduate who founded EvolveMol and participated in Startup Chile,  and Robert Lim, who worked at a healthcare IT startup.

John: “I’m excited about SoilGene as they are applying genomics to a completely new market.”

Andrew shared his enthusiasm for the companies participating as well: “We’ve got young entrepreneurs working on breakthrough DNA synthesis technologies, freshly minted academics with deep expertise on DNA sequencing and analysis, and seasoned biotechnology entrepreneurs working on products that could one day show up on supermarket shelves or at your favorite clothing store. Diversity and passion. They’re all keen to work hard this summer and be successful.”

Over the course of the summer, these companies will engage in sessions with investors, other entrepreneurs, intellectual property and tax attorneys, and ethical and policy experts in synthetic biology, along with the opportunity to build peer-to-peer relationships.

But the essential task for the summer is product development and that means bench work. Fortunately, that’s where Triple Ring comes in.

Triple Ring is an engineering consulting firm serving medtech, life science and defense industries and is supporting SynBio by providing the startups with access to its new wet lab, a combination chemistry/BSL-2 biology lab with equipment for molecular and cellular biology as well as handling human and animal tissues. Dr. H. Roger Tang, who is an Advising Scientist of Bioengineering & Biotechnologies, explained that ”Triple Ring’s wet lab is part of a 64,000 square foot facility in Newark that includes dedicated laboratories for electronics, optics, and radiation source development; a machine shop for mechanical prototyping; client office space; and a pilot manufacturing facility.” In regards to the partnership with SU, he said, “We are very pleased to be hosting this inaugural year of the SynBio incubator and are looking forward to an interesting and fruitful summer with the teams.”

So what’s in the near future for these three teams? In mid-August, the incubator will wrap up with each company presenting their work to SU and investors at a two-day Demo Day. Beyond that, Sandra suggests that SU is looking to have long-term impacts on the synthetic biology community, starting with these hand-picked companies. “We will be working and putting together more infrastructure and community to support these companies going forward.” She notes that it may be two to three years to fully gauge the impact the program is having.

Raymond McCauley, Chief Science Officer at Genomera and co-chair of SU’s Biotechnology & Bioinformatics efforts, summed up the SynBio program and the university’s role in the field nicely:

Synthetic biology is at a take-off point today precisely because of the successes we’ve seen in tech and biotech. Advances in DNA sequencing and synthesis, especially plunging costs, give unprecedented advantages to companies working in these fields.

No one has ever seen a technology advance this quickly before.

People are fundamentally uneasy about technologies that fiddle with life itself, and understandably so. Part of the reason for that is we don’t have enough good, comprehensible products to point to in this field, companies that show the tremendous good that can be done here. We hope to change that by example and by education.

Singularity University is all about helping people understand exponential technologies, and then apply that understanding by building great organizations and addressing world issues. Synthetic biology is a special focus area for us, as it’s an exponential technology currently producing *stuff*. And we don’t want to just talk about these issues, but actually drive them, make them happen.

If you are unfamiliar with synthetic biology as a field or are just interested in seeing an awesome presentation of its potential, check out this great video:

[Media: Singularity University, YouTube]

[Sources: Singularity University, Triple Ring]

Larry Page, Google's CEO, talks about the bets the company took and how to ambitiously dream big.

In a talk titled “Beyond Today”, Google’s CEO Larry Page infused Zeitgeist 2012 attendees with a healthy dose of optimism and a call to make ambitious bets, be better organized and work harder to accelerate technology and improve people’s lives. Donning a Google Glass prototype, he began his talk casually demoing the tech by saying, ”If you guys are going to take my picture, I’ll take your picture too.” Then with a voice command and the tap on the side of the frame, he shared it with everyone at Google. That simple action captured the flavor of his two-part talk, which highlighted Google’s current efforts and cast a vision for where Google is headed next, guided by a slogan he borrowed from a University of Michigan summer leadership course: “Have a healthy disregard for the impossible.”

We’ve been painting a picture of a bright technological future here at Singularity Hub, and now Larry Page is here to bolster our argument.

Dropping a handful of mantra-like sayings, such as “Our job is to make the world better,” Larry explained that since his return to the position of CEO about a year ago, he has helped sharpen what Google should be doing by focusing on important things that would make a difference. Under his direction, Google has been becoming more streamlined by letting go of about 30 projects and picking out about four areas of focus: Google+, search, mobile, and integration across services.

You can watch the whole presentation below:

Describing Google+ as the “social spine of Google”, Larry said, “We think that it’s important that when you are using Google, you be able to easily share things.” He explained that he could share the photo he took with Google Glass easily because he used the circle for the company he set up in Google+. “Everything in Google gets better by being able to share and have identity.” As a social network, Google+ now has 170 million users and has grown “much faster” than any other social network ever has.

Illustrating a key improvement to search – personalized search results – he mentioned how much easier it is now to find his co-worker “Ben Smith” in his search results now that Google recognizes Ben as a person and not a string of characters. “If you used Google [search] from five year ago, you’d be astounded at how bad it was. Search has gotten a lot better. You don’t always see it, because we change it every day and try not to distract you too much with changes.” He then went on to talk about his excitement for the latest search upgrade, Knowledge Panels, which are generated from Knowledge Graph and aim to synthesize knowledge. “What we’re really trying to do its get to the point where we can represent knowledge and do much more complicated types of queries, like ‘What are the 20 deepest lakes?’ or ‘What are the highest market cap companies?’”

Painting a picture of how far Android has come, Larry pointed out that Android is “really on fire now” and gave insight into how transformative mobile technology is: “It’s exciting to see that everyone in the world is going to get a smartphone now. For most people probably in the world, it’s going to be their first computer. It’s not a question of if now, it’s a question of when.”

He also said Google is focused on making an “amazing, beautiful, seamless experience” across its applications, citing how Chrome instantaneously syncs between mobile and desktop as well as how Google Play removes the need for downloading apps or files to each device if you want to play games or watch movies.

Having started his talk by casting a bird’s eye view of all the change that technology is bringing, he said, “It’s easy to think about technology as being relatively static…but that’s not really what’s happening. I think the pace of change is really accelerating.” In the second half, he returned to this future-focused viewpoint, giving insight into how Google decides what to focus on by using what he called the Toothbrush Test: “Do you use it as often as you use a toothbrush?”

Pointing to the $1.4 billion purchase of YouTube, he said it was a big bet but Google knew it was a popular service and fortunately, YouTube has been doubling revenue for the last four years. He also mentioned having the courage to fail, citing how AdSense was the result of a failed experiment to understand the web. He encouraged the listeners to be prepared to try new, crazy ideas, saying, “It’s often easier to make progress when you’re really ambitious. The reason is you actually don’t have any competition because no one is willing to try those things. You also get all the best people.” He used the Google self-driving car as an example of a crazy project that has enormous potential to change. Finally, he said, “Anything you can imagine is probably doable. You just have to imagine and work on it.” He pointed to Google Translate, which developers initially said couldn’t measure up to a human translator, but now, 64 languages can be translated into one another instantly and for free.

Altogether, Larry’s 20-minute talk presents some insights into the Google worldview, both in terms of where the company invests its energy and how it is shaping the future. But his real message extended beyond Google’s accomplishments and aimed squarely at encouraging people to make bold dreams that take advantage of the amazing opportunities modern technology provides and is capable of. The moments in his talk when his excitement came through earmarked an insider’s vision of a rapidly approaching reality that will be amazing.

Who knew Larry was a Singularitarian?

[Media: YouTube]

[Sources: YouTube]

The Dragon docked to the International Space Station Friday and SpaceX made history.

The era of commercial spaceflight has begun.

Early Friday morning SpaceX, a private company with less than 2,000 employees and and average age of 30, entered a domain that had until now been – literally and figuratively – occupied by big governments with really big budgets. Their Dragon spacecraft successfully docked to the International Space Station, the first privately funded spacecraft to do so.

But not without difficulty.

Before the Dragon was reeled in it performed a series of test maneuvers to show that it could be controlled from both the ground and the ISS. The first test included an approach towards the station. At some point astronaut Andre Kuipers sent it an abort command, after which the Dragon stopped its approach and returned to its hold position 250 meters from the station. But the test wasn’t a clean pass. Kuipers had sent a command for the Dragon to move to a position 235 meters away, but problems with the Dragon’s thermal camera made the gumdrop-shaped craft move to 250 meters away.

In another test, the Dragon’s LIDAR (light detection and ranging) sensors were fouled by reflections coming from the Japanese Kibo experiment module on the station, causing it to miscalculate its position. SpaceX engineers got around this by narrowing the LIDAR’s detection range and focusing on the path it would take to during its approach to the ISS. Mission control was still worried about the now-limited LIDAR and were prepared to abort should it fail.

But it didn’t. The Dragon, at a standstill 10 meters from the station, awaited as astronaut Don Pettit reached out to it with the robotic arm. Capture was confirmed at 6:56 a.m. PDT. For the next two hours the Dragon was slowly drawn towards the station. When it finally attached to a docking station at 8:52 a.m. over the skies of Australia, the Dragon became the first private spacecraft to deliver cargo to Earth orbit.

The Dragon, being drawn in by the International Space Station's robotic arm.

Pettit said, “Looks like we’ve got a Dragon by the tail,” and jubilant cheers erupted in mission control in Houston and SpaceX’s control center in Hawthorne, California.

The Dragon had brought 1,014 pounds (460 kilograms) of cargo, including food, water, and computers. Purposefully, none of the supplies are essential given that there was no assurance that the Dragon would successfully complete the trip. Also on board was an experiment devised by 14-year-old DC native Kyra Smith that the astronauts will perform to test if bacteria can be used to purify water. The astronauts will fill the Dragon with 1,367 pounds (620 kilograms) of cargo before sending it on its way back to Earth. The historic splashdown is planned for May 31 in the Pacific Ocean.

As routine as it may seem in an age where shuttle launches have long since ceased to be headline news, getting to space is still wrought with mishaps, delays, and occasionally disaster. The Dragon’s original launch date was planned for February 7, but was scratched due to a number of problems including software glitches. And last Saturday one of the Falcon 9 engines showed an unusual buildup of pressure, prompting the launch to be aborted just half a second before blastoff.

And SpaceX still has a lot of work to do if they’re going to be more than just a cargo lift. Transporting astronauts is vastly more technically challenging than transporting freeze-dried ice cream. But SpaceX founder Elon Musk, buoyed by the successful docking, is already talking about flying people to Mars, other planets, the stretch of the solar system. The indomitable Musk, who also designed the electric Tesla Roadster and was instrumental in the creation of the company which became Paypal, said SpaceX could be ready to fly astronauts by 2015. SpaceX will have to prove itself first, though, and they’re slated to begin doing just that this September with the first of 12 deliveries to the ISS contracted with NASA.

But maybe the best part of all this is that SpaceX is just one player in the larger movement towards the privatization of spaceflight. NASA is funding three other companies in addition to SpaceX to develop vehicles to fly astronauts to space. Orbital Sciences Corp plans on launching its Antares rocket and Cygnus capsule later this year.

The Dragon’s docking certainly marks a new era in spaceflight. No longer is it solely the provence of governments. But the shift in the spaceflight paradigm can be mapped to 2004, with Burt Rutan’s claiming of the Ansari X PRIZE. His SpaceShipOne became the first privately-built manned spacecraft to reach space. Instead of costing billions or needing a team of thousands, SpaceShipOne required just $26 million and thirty engineers. Rutan’s company, Scaled Composites, demonstrated that individuals can do the job just as good if not better and more cheaply than governments.

Wearing protective masks and goggles in case of lose debris, ISS commander Oleg Kononenko and astronaut Pettit opened Dragon’s hatch early Saturday morning and floated through. The Dragon and its contents were perfectly in order, and Pettit said it smelled “like a brand new car.” Fitting for the brand new era of spaceflight that the Dragon has also delivered.

[image credits: NASA and MSNBC]
images: NASA and MSNBC

YouTube is growing exponentially thanks in part to mobile access.

It goes without saying that YouTube has become the quintessential online video source for amateurs and professionals alike, but on the service’s seven-year anniversary, Google made quite a startling announcement: 72 hours of video are uploaded every single minute. That’s three entire days worth of cat videos, webcam rants, conference proceedings, news interviews, and company marketing fodder that is quietly swelling hard drives that already serve up four billion videos a day.

According to the YouTube statistics page (which still needs to be updated with the latest numbers), more video is uploaded in one month that the three major networks in the US have generated in 60 years and over 3 billion hours of video is watched per month. Yikes!

However, the biggest surprise of all is that YouTube, which was founded in 2005, is not only growing, but it’s growing exponentially. With the ease of access the Internet provides and the growing number of people gaining access through mobile devices, media is clearly accelerating, but just how fast is fast? A growth chart to the right from Forbes makes it quite clear that uploads are going exponential. This is likely fueled by mobile access, which gets over 600 million views a day and tripled in 2011.

YouTube has become part of the culture to the extent that both national and local news routinely pull videos from it for segments instead of producing their own. There’s so much video that for April Fool’s 2012, the site jokingly advertized the option to buy the entire “YouTube Collection” video library on DVD, which would come out to be 555,000 discs.

But it’s hard to say whether this amazing growth trend can continue or whether it will eventually flatten out. Considering that Google has invested $200 million to partner with select media groups to create specialized channels, priming YouTube into a more robust competitor to television, and positioning itself along with Netflix and Hulu to encourage people to ditch their cable for good. Of course, with every video comes the opportunity for Google’s AdSense to bring in the advertising dollars, and companies like Vevo introducing much maligned commercials before music videos. YouTube has also started expanding merchandise opportunities to all of its partners using CafePress, which is yet another avenue for it to monetize its free video offerings.

Google has been on a tear lately breaking another growth milestone with the recent finding that Google Chrome has become the most used web browser, surpassing Microsoft Internet Explorer for the first time. So if you’re apt to reminisce about YouTube’s journey over the past seven years, check out this celebratory video:

[Media: Forbes, YouTube]

[Sources: Forbes, YouTube]

After being injected with the telomerase gene, adult and old mice lived 24 percent and 13 percent longer, respectively.

Scientists are doing their best to give us the gift of immortality. The latest in the fight against ever dying is a gene therapy that gives mice a healthy dose of telomerase, the enzyme that keeps our chromosomes – and thus our cells and bodies – “young.” The therapy extended the lifespans of mice by 24 percent and, at least so far, the therapy appears to be completely safe.

As we age the dying cells in our body are replenished through cell division. But with each cell division the bits of DNA at the ends of chromosomes – the telomeres – deteriorate. At some point the shortened telomeres signal to the cell that it’s time to stop dividing, leading to tissue degradation – one of the hard facts of life for the now aged cells. But now scientists have given cells a kind of molecular fountain of youth – at least in mice. They injected the mice with the telomerase gene which then slowed the cellular aging process by extending the dwindling telomere ends. They gave the gene therapy to one year old mice, considered adults, and two year old mice, considered old. The lifespan of the one year olds were extended by 24 percent, the two year olds by 13 percent. Not only did the mice live longer, but they reaped beneficial effects across a range of conditions associated with aging including insulin sensitivity, osteoporosis, and physical coordination.

An inactive form of telomerase had no effect on lifespan, confirming that its telomere-lengthening enzymatic activity was crucial. The study was led by María Blasco at the Spanish National Cancer Research Centre and published in EMBO Molecular Medicine.

Dr. Marìa Blasco, Spanish National Cancer Research Centre

The treatment involved replacing the genes of a virus with the gene for telomerase. This viral vector had several advantages. First, viruses are good at getting into the body and infecting a large number of cells. Inserting telomerase into a small handful of cells won’t have much impact on an organism’s lifespan. Second, the gene remains active for years. And lastly, the viral DNA did not insert itself into the DNA of the mouse cells. Past attempts at gene therapy that work this way run the risk of insertion errors that turn the cell into a tumor, as was the case in the trial which caused leukemia in two of nine participants testing a gene therapy for “bubble boy disease.”

Longevity through telomerase is nothing new. Adding telomerase to human cells in culture allowed them to extend their lifespans by at least an extra 20 divisions. And mice genetically engineered to make telomerase lived 40 percent longer and showed improved glucose tolerance, coordination, and less inflammation compared to normal mice. But genetically engineering people isn’t an option (yet), so a treatment form of telomerase such as the injectable virus in the current study – extending the lifespans of adult and old mice – is a much more conceivable approach.

Aging is a complex process with lots of components, many of which we might not even be aware. But if telomere shortening is really so powerfully rate-limiting to our lifespans, then it could turn out to be as close to a silver bullet for longevity as we’re likely to find. Maybe telomerase treatments could buy us those extra years crucial to reaching Aubrey de Grey’s “longevity escape velocity” beyond which new treatments will save us from the disease of death – indefinitely.

[image credits: Science Daily, publico.es, and Science Creative Daily]
images: Science Daily, publico.es, Science Creative Daily

Coffee turns out to be good for your health...as long as you drop all the bad habits that go with it.

Older adults who drink coffee have a lower risk of death by about 10 percent, according to a large observational study of over 400,000 people published in The New England Journal of Medicine. The study, which followed participants aged 50 to 71 during a 14-year window, examined common causes of death, including heart and respiratory disease, stroke, injuries and accidents, diabetes, and infections. For each life-ending ailment, coffee drinking correlated with lower risk of death in both men and women, with cancer being the only condition that showed no correlation in women and a slight increase in risk of death for men who are heavy coffee drinkers.

However, while it would be easy to draw the conclusion that drinking coffee helps you live longer, the raw data from the study actually shows coffee drinkers die younger. Why? Because a number of bad habits and detriments to longevity are associated with coffee drinking, likely negating any benefits from coffee itself.

The study was conducted by researchers at the National Cancer Institute and funded by the NIH and AARP as part of a diet and health study in older Americans (unfortunately, the full article is behind a paywall, but you can access the abstract here). The data were collected via a baseline questionnaire that gauged demographic and lifestyle characteristics along with diet, then monitored until they died or the study ended.

When the data were first analyzed, coffee consumption was associated with an increase in the mortality of both men and women. To arrive at the result that coffee drinking may lower the risk of death, the researchers accounted for particularly damaging vices that coffee drinkers are more prone to engage in, such as smoking. It was only after accounting for the statistical contribution that smoking adds to increasing the rate of mortality did they arrive at the result that coffee drinkers have increased longevity.

Analysis of the study generally showed that the more coffee consumed, the lower the risk of death. (image: LA Times)

A quote from the study indicates the bad habits that coffee drinkers are guilty of:

As compared with persons who did not drink coffee, coffee drinkers were more likely to smoke cigarettes and consume more than three alcoholic drinks per day, and they consumed more red meat. Coffee drinkers also tended to have a lower level of education; were less likely to engage in vigorous physical activity; and reported lower levels of consumption of fruits, vegetables, and white meat.

With over 170 million Americans drinking coffee and over 1 billion coffee drinkers worldwide (coffee is the second largest commodity in the world, after all), the effects of coffee on health have been researched and disputed for a long time. Previous studies have shown that coffee has multiple benefits that can fight depression, prevent diabetes, protect against liver fibrosis, and even help fight cancer, but the scope of this most recent study helps to take a much broader view of its benefits, even taking into account the known problems with observational studies. Although this study shifts the tug-of-war between the health benefits and risks of coffee back toward the healthy side, the particularly damning observation that the health benefits of coffee are negated by a slew of poor lifestyle choices is a lesson for both coffee and non-coffee drinkers alike.

But ultimately the issue of this study is, if coffee is preventative medicine, drink it up. If it’s poison, everyone should avoid it. Simple, right? Well, not exactly.

The question of whether coffee is good or bad for you is inherently a complex one. The process of roasting coffee produces over 1,000 compounds — some of which are antioxidants, while about 19 are known rodent carcinogens. These compounds create the taste and aromatic richness associated with different roasts. But the fact remains that the vast majority of these compounds have not been tested individually for their health effects and likely won’t be for a long time to come.

Furthermore, the study suffers from another longstanding problem from large-scale statistical analyses, which the authors admitted: correlation does not mean causation. In other words, it is impossible to tell whether coffee itself directly contributed to extending the lifetimes of drinkers or if coffee drinking is part of a lifestyle of people who tend to live longer.

But coffee drinkers in general can help their longevity through some simple lifestyle changes, such as quitting smoking (in case you haven’t heard that before) and joining the 35 percent of coffee drinkers who take it black, which eliminates the milk and sugar both of which are detrimental if you’re drinking 4-5 cups a day.

This study illustrates just how tricky it is to fish out all the lifestyle factors that impact health. But in the end, one thing is clear: coffee’s reputation isn’t as black as previously labeled.

[Media: flickr, LA Times, sxc]

[Sources: Coffee Chemistry, NEJM, Science Daily]

And you thought your vintage Swatch was a fashion statement.

Like to keep track of time and enjoy music on your iPod nano, but can’t tolerate those cumbersome bands and straps? Just surgically implant magnets into your wrist and attach your nano – strap-free.

That’s what Dave Hurban did. The two posts embedded beneath his skin are attached to a pair of magnets each. Hurban measured out the location of the magnets so that they’d fit the nano precisely – the carpenter’s rule, “measure twice, cut once” being oh so important.

Hurban is calling his little bit of self-mutilation in the name of technology iDermal. A body piercer himself, he’s already had his fair share of piercings. So sticking the metallic posts, or “micro-dermal anchors” as he calls them, isn’t so drastic a fashion statement to him as it might be to most. But still, why’d he do it?

As he told Digital Times, because he “thought it would be cool.”

Judging from the comments on the YouTube video not many people are with Hurban on that one. But I’m going to go out on a limb here and say he probably doesn’t care what other people think. But take a closer look and you realize that the video has been viewed nearly 2 million times with almost a 2-to-1 ratio of “likes” to “dislikes.” Is that because people admire Hurban’s rebellious shrug of convention or does it speak to a broader movement towards body augmentation in general? We’ve already seen Skinput that turns your forearm and fingers into a control pad. The Pebble smartwatch is (surprisingly?) seriously popular, raising more than $10 million in its Kickstarter campaign. And Google Goggles will make it so uncool to ask for directions in the future. We’re slowly and sometimes stylishly changing into cyborgs. Hopefully most of our augmentations won’t involve as much blood as Hurban’s.

[image credits: iDermal via YouTube]
[video credit: iDermal via YouTube]
images: iDermal
video: iDermal

**Update** The submission deadline for RFF 2012 has been extended from June 7th to June 15th!

It’s about time that the future of cinema reflected the future of the world. The second annual Robot Film Festival is gearing up to take NYC by storm on July 14th. While dedicated to showcasing films that feature robotic characters and themes, last year’s RFF included a huge range of movies. Documentaries on lunar explorers, tongue-in-cheek rap videos, heartfelt tales about robot affection – RFF 2011 proved to the world that robot-themed cinema has as much to offer as the film industry as a whole. The 2012 Robot Film Festival looks to be even better. Two headlining films have already been announced: I’m Here by Spike Jonze, and Robot & Frank starring Hollywood legend Frank Langella. And things are just getting started. Aspiring filmmakers can still submit their robot inspired works to RFF 2012 thru June 7th June 15th. Don’t miss the opportunity to be part of one of the most promising new film festivals in the world.

To get you excited for July 14th, Singularity Hub has gathered a collection of videos for you to watch below, including previews of the two headlining films, and many of last year’s winners. Enjoy!

First, here’s the trailer for Spike Jonze’s I’m Here – A Love Story in an Absolut World. All the eccentric excitement you’ve come to expect from a Jonze film, just with more robots:

The other headlining film, Robot & Frank by Jake Schreier, is a compelling story about the bonds that can develop between man and machine. Frank Langella plays an aging father facing a loss of memory, mental flexibility, and freedom. Is his new live-in robot helper a key to a better life, or a very shiny shackle? Here’s a clip:

Part of what made the inaugural Robot Film Festival so interesting was the variety of films that made it in. Moonrush by Jonathan Minard at Deepseed Media, is a documentary look at the work and vision of William “Red” Whittaker, a world-renowned roboticist with designs on getting automated explorers to the moon. In sharp contrast is the winner of Best Picture 2011: The Machine by Bent Image Lab. A morality play and creation myth wrapped up in the trappings of artificial life, The Machine is a compelling piece of animation. It’s amazing that you can have both documentary and campfire fiction play so well together in the same film festival. Both shorts are available to watch in full below:

Much of what works for the Robot Film Festival is the balance between films that tug on your emotions, and films that expand your mind. In the first category belongs my personal favorite, Chorebot by Greg Omelchuck, available to watch on Vimeo here. Also in the emotional category is Waiting for Name Assignment by Alvaro Gavan, which won an award for best human playing a robot:

In the mind expansion category I would include Absolut Machine: Absolut Quartet by Jon Lieberman and Don Paluska, which shows a group of delightful designed automated instruments. There’s also Operation daVinci by LCSR Robotics (winner of the Audience Award) which showcases the real world daVinci surgical robot:

Finally we have those videos which just sort of fry your mind a bit to watch. Saturn by iStave Creative is visually stunning with a dynamic audio accompaniment that really makes it feel like a trippy music video. It’s also not really safe to view at work – you can watch it here. I’ll end with a film that fries your mind in a completely different way: with brain-twitching groaning and meta-ironic smirking. Me and My Robots by Jay Kila is either the worst or best thing you’ll see from the 2011 Robot Film Festival. You can decide for yourself:

RFF 2012 promises to be even better than the opening year. The headliners are great, the production team is enthusiastic, and the buzz around the web is favorable. If you or someone you know has a robot-themed short film that they want to share with the world, submit now. The June 7th June 15th deadline is looming. For the rest of us, watching the 2012 Robot Film Festival should be excitement enough.  Not sure what you’re doing July 14th, but if I can be in NYC, I know how I’ll be spending my time.

[image credit: RFF 2011/2012]
[video credits: as listed above]
[source: RFF]

The Leap 3D-motion sensing device looks to take gesture control to the next level.

For the last six years, game consoles have been the developers hot spot for motion control, but finally good old computers are getting some love. A startup called Leap Motion has announced the development of the Leap 3D motion control device that is sensitive down to 1/100 of a millimeter – that’s 200 times better than other sensors (read: Kinect). At this resolution, the Leap software is able to resolve the motion of individual fingers, allowing for intuitive gesture controls like pinch-to-zoom, highly accurate virtual drawing, and manipulation of 3D models. The device, which is just about twice the size of a USB thumb drive, sensitively detects motion via infrared light within a space of 4 cubic feet, which is effectively the working space in front of a desktop or laptop.

Available for preorder now for $70 (over three times less than the Kinect for Windows) and expected to release this winter in limited supply, the Leap sensor is a huge step forward toward the era of Minorty Report-esque computer interfaces.

For a look at the sensitive and responsive capabilities of the Leap, check out the demo:

The possibilities with the Leap seem endless, especially since the hardware is small enough to work with mobile devices and other things that are now using touch screen interfaces, like appliances. In a statement, CEO Michale Buckwald said that the inspiration for the Leap came from working with 3D models and the frustration in “the gap between what’s easy in the real world but very complicated to do digitally.” In light of this, Leap Motion is focused on building an ecosystem of software around the device by making developer kits available for free. This strategy is likely one of the reasons that the startup received $12.75 million in Series A funding recently, adding to the $1.8 million it already raised.

The Leap device arrives at a perfect time now that motion control has seen widespread adoption. It started with the Wii Remote motion controller, which was released by Nintendo in 2006 and made more sensitive with the MotionPlus attachment in 2008. In November 2010, the Microsoft Kinect sensor hit the shelves and helped vault the Xbox into an entertainment platform. Although a PC version of the Kinect became available in February of this year, it’s retail price of $250 puts it out of reach for many computer users who can stick with the technology they are most comfortable with: the mouse.

Compared to the Kinect, the Leap Motion technology brings 200 times greater sensitivity in a smaller device at a third of the price in just two years. Wow.

For a second look at what the device can do, you can watch this video from CNET:

One group of people that will likely gobble up the Leap is the robotics community. We’ve highlighted a number of Kinect hacks that developers have created to enhance robots, such as making an iRobot see the world, having a robot mirror someone’s actions, and the Kinect-hack competition from ROS. Imagine what robots can accomplish when the sensitivity is so much greater in the Leap.

Functionally, the Leap opens up the possibilities to perform specific, gesture-friendly tasks much more easily than is currently possible. Digital signatures, for example, are sloppy with a mouse and, though USB drawing tablets work well, are pricey and can be challenging to find other uses for, that is, if you aren’t an artist. The demo makes it pretty clear how much easier it could be just to move a pen or a finger in the air to sign something.

Still, as cool as the Leap device seems to be, the keyboard and a mouse have persisted because they are the easiest ways to get things done on a desktop (and why the pen stylus never got traction). For Leap to change that, a host of powerful software needs to be developed that allows for common tasks to be done not just in a cooler way with gestures, but in a much more efficient way like touchscreen technology has accomplished. And that’s a tall order for current operating systems that are designed around the 2D interface of a monitor. Still, interest in developing a Minority Report interface inspired a Kinect hack over a year ago at MIT, so it’s much more likely that the Leap or some other gesture technology will eventually be embedded into a keyboard, allowing for the best of both worlds.

The technology from Leap Motion just shows how far precise 3D motion sensing and gesture control has come. When these kinds of sensors are combined with voice recognition software, we will be stepping into a science fiction movie right at our desks.

[Media: CNET, YouTube]

[Sources: CNET, Leap Motion]

Welcome back to Accelerated Tech News. For the past six weeks Singularity Hub has been experimenting with a new way of sharing its content with humanity: video. With a rapid review of the week’s past top stories, Accelerated Tech News is the easily digested version of Singularity Hub’s world-class science and technology news. Watch ATN to find the stories that entice your brain, and then go back to Singularity Hub to read the full length articles and learn all you need to know. It’s that simple. Stay tuned for more Accelerated Tech News in the weeks ahead. Production value is going to get better and editing will improve as well. We make no promises, however, about the host’s sense of humor. Some malfunctions simply cannot be fixed.

The Argos system has allowed researchers to track wildlife for years, but the time has come for a new system.

Satellite technology is a modern-day “Wonder of the World.” Consider that currently over 1,000 active satellites orbit the Earth, communicating with ground-based transmitters and receivers for a host of applications, such as delivering scientific measurements, weather information, and television programming, to name a few. Since the launch of Sputnik I in 1957, satellite technology has increasingly connected people together, whether in the same town or on opposite sides of the planet, effectively making the world flat.

One of the increasingly employed technologies is GPS tracking, which many of the world’s 6.6 billion mobile subscribers (over 90 percent of the world’s population) have come to rely on. For the last few decades, scientists too have utilized satellite tracking to monitor wildlife to better understand their migratory patterns and the impact humans have on their environments. Recently, for the first time, satellite tracking has provided insight into the last of the marine megavertebrate species to be monitored by satellite: the giant manta ray.

Although this latest study is a success story for a technology that has matured over two decades, it also highlights just how far behind satellite tracking of animals is compared to humans and how desperately that needs to be changed.

The research, published in PLoS ONE (read the full article for free here), described how six manta rays were tagged with trackers as they traversed nearly 700 miles around the Yucatan peninsula and were monitored for up to 64 days before the trackers fell off. The researchers discovered that the manta rays predominantly remained in warmer water (26-30°C) of less than 50 meters deep, but spent nearly 90 percent of their time outside of Marine Protected Areas where human contact is minimized.

Satellite tracks of three of the six manta rays show their movement over a 1-2 month window.

Because manta rays are currently listed as ‘vulnerable’ to extinction by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, knowing the degree to which they intersect with human activities is essential to understanding their long term survival. This is especially important as the rays are often at risk of being hit by shipping boats, chopped up by fisherman for use as shark bait, and hunted for their cartilaginous gill rakers that are used in Eastern medicine practices.

Furthermore, manta rays are exposed to humans increasingly in the megafauna tourism industry that offers scuba divers a chance to swim with the rays. A study by The Manta Ray Of Hope Project estimated that a single manta ray brings in an income of $1 million to local ecotourism over its lifetime. The global tourism value of manta rays is estimated at $50 million a year, while the market value for the ray’s gill rakers is $11 million, so the study concluded that there is much greater financial value to the tourism industry in keeping the manta rays alive. Unfortunately, though current population sizes are unknown, it is believed that giant manta ray numbers are dwindling rapidly.

Slate put together a video highlighting the study:

For over 30 years, the migratory patterns of marine animals, including sharks, turtles, and now giant manta rays, have been made possible by the Argos satellite system. Launched in 1978 as a joint venture between the French Space Agency, NASA, and the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration (NOAA), this system was originally intended for meteorological and oceanographic studies only. But in 1986, the system, which employs a number of satellites, was commercialized, allowing researchers to propose new uses for the system.

Since that time, satellite tracking via Argos has become a vital research tool for studying marine biology and ecology, with over 3,000 animals currently being tracked by Argos. A 2009 review in the journal Endangered Species Research found that satellite telemetry of marine megavertebrates was maturing into “an operational science.” Tracking has helped researchers follow leatherback turtles making a 7,500-km journey across the South Atlantic, manatees trekking from Florida up to Rhode Island, and a host of  sharks, which have seen an 80 percent population drop in the last 50 years. But the study also revealed a rather shocking truth: only 92 studies using satellite tracking were reported in the literature between 1987 and 2006 with less than a quarter of these studying marine mammals.

In other words, we really have very little idea of what’s going on under the sea.

As with other species that call the ocean home, it is difficult to gauge exactly what impact humans are having on marine life, but it doesn’t look so good. We’re doing a horrible job at managing the oceans between the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, whose size is exaggerated but still considerable, the loss of 10,000 shipping containers to the sea every year, and overfishing which has been projected to cause a global collapse of fish species by mid-century if action isn’t taken. A recent study discovered that something as innocuous as replacing native trees along the coast of an atoll with non-native palms produced a cascade of effects resulting in a massive decline of seabird, plankton, and manta ray populations. It’s also conjectured that humans cause extinction at a faster rate than new species can evolve, and though the rate of extinction may not be as rapid as some believe, increasing pressure on the ocean will only add to the 16 known marine species that have become extinct since 1972.

The ocean is considered by many to be the last great frontier on Earth, full of numerous resources and mysteries about life on Earth, so it is imperative that related technologies can be transferred rapidly to enhance marine studies. Recently, James Cameron made a well publicized dive in partnership with National Geographic to the Mariana Trench in a new submarine, beating Richard Branson to the punch and demonstrating how far submersible technology has come since the first dive in 1951 to the bottom of the ocean. Other projects are underway to use the power of modern technologies to explore the ocean, such as the development of underwater drones, which could turn out to be as successful as military drones have been.

New satellite tracking systems are also gaining momentum. An initiative called the International Cooperation for Animal Research Using Space (ICARUS) is focused on small animal tracking using radio transmitters (much smaller than the larger Argos tags) and hopes to be monitoring 1,000 small animals by 2014. Previous tracking of marine life using the 27 GPS satellites has been difficult because the tags are detectable only in shallower water and GPS can take at least a minute to coordinate a signal. However, newer Fastloc technology has reduced the amount of time considerably down to around a tenth of a second and extended the depth to 1,000 meters.

Still, if we will have smartphones soon that will be able to track our position down to the inch using a whole host of technologies, including wireless, GPS, and Bluetooth, to coordinate position, surely there must be a way to do something similar for wildlife monitoring. Satellite tracking has proven to be such a powerful technology that it’s clear what’s needed is an advanced telemetry and coordinated tracking system to monitor multiple species in real time.

And while it may seem like a tall order, such a system will be in place for humans in the near future, even in the face of international issues, legislation, and privacy concerns, so can’t we find a way to monitor the rest of life on Earth as well?

[Media: NASA, National Geographic, WFU, YouTube]

[Sources: Argos, LA Times, PLoS One, Shark Savers]

A study of over a hundred thousand trial participants showed that gene variations which change levels of HDL have no effect on heart attack risk.

The revelation that high-density lipoprotein, or HDL, is the “good cholesterol” has suffered a major blow. A meta-study involving over a hundred thousand participants used two different strategies to see if genetic mutations that increased levels of HDL also decreased risk for heart disease. In both cases the answer was a resounding no. The researchers were shocked when they saw the data. Now it’s their turn to shock HDL proponents and drug companies looking to cash in on the HDL craze.

The study, which was published recently in The Lancet, is causing quite a stir in the field. As Dr. James de Lemos, from the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, told the New York Times, “I’d say the HDL hypothesis is on the ropes right now.” Dr. de Lemos was not involved in the study.

So what’s the story here? How is it possible that LDL/HDL dichotomy has propagated so powerfully through conventional wisdom that even the CDC refers to them as “good” and “bad” cholesterols and pharmaceutical companies like Abbot Laboratories are working hard to get in on the HDL cash cow?

Past studies have shown that much of what increases our risk for heart disease, like obesity, lack of exercise, smoking, and insulin resistance, is correlated with low HDL. It was a logical conclusion, then, that by increased HDL levels we could decrease those risks. But correlation doesn’t mean causation, and the takeaway conclusion from the current study is that decreased HDL is simply a sign of increased risk for heart disease but the level of HDL doesn’t actually affect heart disease.

In the most recently published study researchers used genetic, lipoprotein, and heart attack outcome data from some thirty odd studies to see if a genetic mutation known to increase HDL levels decreased the chance of heart attack. They focused on the gene for endothelial lipase. Past research has shown that when endothelial lipase has certain single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) it leads to increased levels of HDL. Looking at study data from 116,000 participants, they saw that 2.6 percent of them had the SNPs and confirmed that their HDL levels were significantly higher than average. But when they compared the incidence of heart attack between the two groups they found no difference whatsoever.

The second part of the study took a similar approach, but instead of limiting analysis to one gene the researchers looked at 14 gene variants know to affect HDL levels and asked if the variations affected cardiovascular health. Again, the amount of HDL did not affect whether or not a person suffered a heart attack.

But even with such a high sample size, it’s possible that the methodology of the study was somehow flawed. Using low-density lipoprotein (LDL) – the so-called bad cholesterol – as a control, the researchers analyzed gene variants among the participant pool and confirmed that decreased levels of LDL lessened the chance of a heart attack, validating their analysis of the HDL data.

Think twice before you reach for that bottle of HDL-boosting Niacin.

This may come as a shock to many, but another study published last year suggested that HDL was not so “good” after all. The trial tested the effects of niacin, a drug that increases a person’s HDL levels, on over 3,000 patients at risk for heart disease. Because niacin stimulates the production of HDLs they were expected to improve the cardiovascular outlook of these high-risk patients. Two years into the study researchers confirmed that the group’s HDL levels were increased. At three years, however, the study was stopped prematurely due to “lack of efficacy.”

But while the research may be “on the ropes,” not everyone’s throwing in the HDL towel just yet. Dr. Steven Nissen who is the Cleveland Clinic’s chair of cardiovascular medicine and conducts HDL research himself told the New York Times that he is “hopeful,” reasoning that HDL is “complicated.” In 2010 the Cleveland Clinic received a $11.6 million grant to study the benefits of HDL, so it’s easy to see how the current study would indeed “complicate” things.

Cardiovascular disease is the world’s number one killer. Responsible for 30 percent of all deaths globally, it claimed the lives of nearly 16 million people in 2008. The pharmaceutical giants all have their own version of cholesterol-lowering statin: Merck’s Zocor, AstraZeneca’s Crestor, and Pfizer’s Lipitor, which has become the most profitable drug of all time at sales of over $130 billion. It’s no wonder then that companies have been busy trying to reap the rewards of HDL-boosting niacin.

Abbott Laboratories, which offers a version of niacin called Niaspan, responded to the halted trial by saying it might not work for the chronically high-risk, but it remains to be seen if others won’t benefit. But like Dr. Nissen, I suppose Abbott can take momentary solace in the fact that these are, after all, just two studies – albeit one a very large study. But if others begin to confirm the current findings, the “good” in HDL will become “good riddance.”

[image credits: Healthy Living, DoctorSaputo.com, and Benefits of Niacin]
images: Healthy Living, DoctorSaputo.com, and Benefits of Niacin