[HN Gopher] Scientists found genetic mutations in every astronau... ___________________________________________________________________ Scientists found genetic mutations in every astronaut blood sample they studied Author : kiyanwang Score : 136 points Date : 2022-09-08 09:37 UTC (1 days ago) (HTM) web link (futurism.com) (TXT) w3m dump (futurism.com) | acqbu wrote: | The obvious question is: How is this different from non- | astronauts being affected by mutagens like chemicals and | radiation? Are there any statistical differences? | 1970-01-01 wrote: | >The samples were then cryogenically stored at -112 degrees | Fahrenheit for around two decades. | | So "scientists" stored DNA for 20 years and _then_ decided to | take a closer look? Better than nothing, but not by much. | jostmey wrote: | DNA sequencing wasn't an economically feasible option 20 years | ago | bergenty wrote: | Well you're not addressing the GPs concerns. The DNA could be | severely damaged. | 1970-01-01 wrote: | OK 20 years maybe it wasn't worth the cost, but by 2011 it | was only thousands of dollars. | | https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/DNA- | Sequen... | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_sequencer#Comparison | klyrs wrote: | If they did analysis using tools and methods that weren't | available / affordable 20 years ago, then preserving the | samples for that long might have been wise. | anarticle wrote: | Ouch, it is not uncommon to freeze samples for a long time, | especially rare ones like this. You're free to peruse the | literature on how this is an accepted practice. | 1970-01-01 wrote: | So I did. Searched and read about it, found out the viability | and recovery of cryopreserved PBMC has a clear downward | slope. Samples are good for years, not decades. | JoshTko wrote: | Does anyone know if astronaut living quarters are designed to | have equipment, water etc. placed in a way to maximize shielding? | I.e a water tank that is shaped like a shell rather than a tank. | amelius wrote: | Question: in space, is the direction where radiation comes from | distributed evenly, is all radiation coming from one direction, | or something else? | dr_orpheus wrote: | A combination of directed and distributed evenly. There are 3 | (sort of 4) sources of radiation. | | 1. Trapped protons and neutrons in the Van Allen radiation | belts. The ISS is well below the first Van Allen belt but it | is really a continuous spectrum with peaks and valleys. For | example there is the South Atlantic Anomaly where the inner | radiation belt dips lower and flying through this region | exposes you to more radiation. This is the fairly distributed | radiation source | | 2. The sun. Solar storms, coronal mass ejections, all of | these increase radiation. Although these may not be facing | the sun as much as you might think. The radiation bends | around the magnetic field of the earth so this often affects | things closer to the poles of the Earth (and causes the | Auroras) and spacecraft in high inclination orbits. | | 3. Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs). These are from far off events | like supernovae or black holes but are really high energy. So | direction is generally "from the galactic disk" but that is a | pretty wide direction | | 4. Bremsstrahlung. This is basically radiation caused when | one charged particle deflecting/slowing down another | particle. The interaction causes some radiation (usually in | the form of X-rays, or gamma rays if you get something coming | in real hot) but basically comes out as the vector component | of how the particle was deflected so it can be from a number | of directions. | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung#In_astrophysics | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _in space, is the direction where radiation comes from | distributed evenly, is all radiation coming from one | direction, or something else?_ | | Mostly directionally from the Sun. Reflected radiation comes | from the reflection surface. Cosmic background from dark sky | (which isn't all directions if you're near a blocking body). | | That said, the point of these studies is to measure how much | damage which kinds of radiation cause. So short answer, we're | not sure. (But probably the Sun.) | amelius wrote: | Ok. | | Now I'm wondering, if you go from the space ship, say 1000 | km into the direction of the Sun, and then somehow apply a | very small force to the radiation, would it be possible to | make the radiation go past the space ship? | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _then somehow apply a very small force to the | radiation, would it be possible to make the radiation go | past the space ship_ | | For charged particles, yes. This is how the earth's | magnetic field [1] protects us. | | [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_fi | eld#Mag... | elmomle wrote: | While I don't know the answer, I'd think maintainability is the | big constraint there. In the extreme case, imagine the | difficulty of pinpointing and fixing any problem when all your | systems are nested shells with a massive surface area. You'd | need to take half the station apart any time something went | wrong. | natch wrote: | That's the plan for trips to Mars. Water storage would be in a | void between outer walls, creating a somewhat / partially | protective barrier. | jeisc wrote: | Human beings are earthbound creatures and can live in space only | with the mother ship earth... which we are working on destroying. | | Something might survive and thrive in space of course if it were | properly designed for that. | habibur wrote: | Was expecting a number comparing the amount of mutation with a | regular non-astronaut's genetic mutation. It's not there. | [deleted] | chromatin wrote: | That information is relatively well known to those familiar | with the field of clonal hematopoiesis, and was likely omitted | for brevity. It is not reasonable to expect lay public level of | background information to be included in every discipline's | scientific publications. | | I'll point you to the two seminal papers in the field of CH | though if you are interested. These were published back-to-back | in the same issue of NEJM in 2014 (interestingly from separate | competing groups at Harvard). | | https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa1408617 | https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa1409405 | jxramos wrote: | I don't get it, how is it that the simple question of "compared | to what?" is just completely omitted and seemingly never even | considered by so many authors? Do people just operate with | plain dead end facts without context or curiosity about how | normal is even characterized or distributed? Is the idea of a | nominal case/measure/etc so foreign? I wonder what series of | basic questions could be memorized that could be a tool for | authors to ask themselves to elicit getting this information or | at least stating that the answers are unknown. | hedora wrote: | If I were on a tenure review board, I would argue against | treating Nature papers as peer reviewed publications. I keep | seeing obvious "strong reject" clickbait from them, | specifically. | | This paper is a prime example. | lostlogin wrote: | Are you referring to the paper, or the summary of the paper | which was linked to here? | hedora wrote: | The actual paper. It's the top link in the body of the | article. | michaericalribo wrote: | I'm confused...did you read the Science paper itself? In | their _first paragraph_ they reference baseline genetic | variation, and age-related mutation versus the mutations seen | in cancer survivors and--as it turns out--astronauts, in the | second paragraph. Lots more details and caveats on the | limitations of the data elsewhere in the paper. | | You seem to be reacting to this article, which is a popular | summary of the findings. I don't even think it's a misleading | article--it conveys the qualitative conclusion (elevated | rates of nonstandard mutations), and answers to the questions | you posed are available in the full scientific study... | hedora wrote: | The article links to a Nature paper. Are you reading a | different paper? | | https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-022-03777-z.pdf | | This is the closest thing I can find to a reference to a | control in the first two paragraphs. The figures also | suggest they did not have a control, so the use of the | phrase "elevated rates" is baseless: | | > _Considering baseline genetic and extrinsic variability, | the development of tools that permit the assessment of | individual genetic susceptibility would improve risk | stratification and long-term clinical management._ | | If funded, that still wouldn't be a reasonable control. | | Maybe I'm missing a key sentence or something, but I've | read the paper, and it seems to boil down to: | | "Mutations are bad, and this expensive piece of equipment | measures mutations, so we stuck expensive astronaut blood | in it, and the gauge pointed to a non-zero number". | carbocation wrote: | Would have been nice to see a comparison to alternates | who were otherwise qualified but did not fly shuttles. | michaericalribo wrote: | Later: | | > Variants (SNP/ InDel) generated with this method were | compared with a normal dataset using Archer's analysis | pipeline to distinguish noise from a true call. The | normal dataset was created with sequencing data from | seven young, healthy individuals. | hedora wrote: | Archer's analysis pipeline isn't a well defined | statistical test. It's a UI that browses results from the | type of machine they used: | | https://www.enzymatics.com/news/archer-analysis-pipeline- | upd... | | They filtered the results with various p-values < 0.01. | Their supplementary data: | | https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-022-03777-z#Sec9 | | doesn't say how many samples the machine produced in the | first place, but it does say the filter resulted in 35 | hits. That tells us absolutely nothing about the rate of | mutations in the astronauts vs the general population, or | even if astronauts produce more novel mutations on | average vs. the general population. | | On top of that, they seem to have the data to answer | these questions, but don't report it anywhere: | | Do zero-mission astronauts also show a "true call" in | Archer's analysis pipeline? | | They ran multiple samples from the same astronauts | (before and after missions). On average, does the same | astronaut have more/more-novel mutations after each | mission? | | These would require additional experiments or data, but | seem obvious to check: | | Do they have unusually high or low numbers of mutations | vs. the general population at the same age? | | If so, grouping the general population sample, what other | professions also show a "true call" according to the | pipeline? | gus_massa wrote: | From the article: | | > _in this astronaut cohort (median age 44 years, range | 37-67),_ | | I'd like to see also a comparison with 7 normal persons | with ~45 years old. How many mutations is the expected | value for a ~45 years old person? | pcrh wrote: | The article itself is full of caveats and concludes that | their finding is inconclusive... Just some examples: | | >Overall, further longitudinal studies are required to | characterize CH and somatic mutational profiles in the | context of space flight-associated stressors and their | associated clinical impact. To date, there is no evidence | of relevant CVD, cancer, or neurodegenerative diagnoses | associated with this given astronaut cohort (current median | age 62.5 years (IQR 60-67)). The lack of longitudinal | samples from these same astronauts limits the assessment of | clone stability, pathogenic potential, and prognostic value | | But that the value of their report is in demonstrating the | possibility of using stored archival blood samples in | future studies: | | >Thus, this study serves to address the feasibility of | using bio-banked astronaut samples and demonstrate the | importance of collaborations between NASA's Human Research | Program, Translational Research Institute for Space Health, | Space Biology Program, NASA's clinical support teams and | corre- sponding data and biorepository branches, | | Unfortunately, though, people far and wide are inevitably | going to use this paper as evidence that space travel | causes leukemia... | csdvrx wrote: | > The article itself is full of caveats and concludes | that their finding is inconclusive... Just some example | | It's a bad example. Mutations are known to cause various | health problems like cancer. It's like randomly writing | to the RAM, live: maybe you won't crash the computer | immediately, but keep trying and you'll do damages. | | The fact there's "no evidence of relevant CVD, cancer, or | neurodegenerative diagnoses associated with this given | astronaut cohort" shouldn't be surprising, given that | astronauts are finely selected for perfect health among a | large pool of candidate. | | It's like saying "it's totally ok to do drugs or | performance enhancer when you're a sports professional | player" - no, they will eventually degrade the pro player | health too! | | Compared to a random person, it _might_ just show later, | as they have more of a health capital. | | > Unfortunately, though, people far and wide are | inevitably going to use this paper as evidence that space | travel causes leukemia... | | Given everything we know, yes it should, among other | things - just like writing to RAM should eventually crash | a computer | pcrh wrote: | Mutations acquired during a lifetime are far more common | that commonly believed; it's a key aspect of ageing. The | astronauts in this study had an average age of 44, by | which time they would be expected to have acquired | mutations under normal, earthbound, conditions. | | To address this, the study compares the number of | mutations found in the astronauts with the number found | in a broader population with mean age of 58 yrs. Notably, | they do not conclude that more mutations were found in | the astronauts. | whycombinetor wrote: | I'm not following several different aspects of your comment | here. First of all, the paper is in Nature, not Science. | Second, the first and second paragraphs do contain some | relevant words, but nothing quantitative - literally the | only quantitative number (not nomenclature number) in the | entire first 2 paragraphs is CHIP being defined as >2% of | something. Furthermore the reference to baseline genetic | variation you mention is verbatim as follows: "Considering | baseline genetic and extrinsic variability, the development | of tools that permit the assessment of individual genetic | susceptibility would improve risk stratification and long- | term clinical management." | | And I would argue that the article (not paper) does _not_ | convey the qualitative conclusion of elevated rates of | nonstandard mutations, because it doesn't reference the | baseline at all! It doesn't even present it as a | comparison, like "We found MORE mutations in astronauts | than would be expected of non-astronauts" - it literally | just phrases it as "We found mutations in astronauts", | which, considering that non-astronauts are exposed to | radiation and get cancer + epigenetic mutations as well, | doesn't differentiate it from the normal expected | observation. | michaericalribo wrote: | You're eliding an entire body of research with ">2% of | something." That assertion is cited, and links to a full | study. | | This is an observational study, and you may be analyzing | it as a designed one. There was no randomization, no | large scale matched control group per se--that wasn't the | intention. The intention is to analyze a specific | population, and compare it to the existing literature on | prevalence of mutations. That's how these things are | done, you have to use the citations given to understand | the broader context of a study. One study is not useful | on its own. | | Also, there's this--they did hypothesis tests against a | control group: | | > Variants (SNP/ InDel) generated with this method were | compared with a normal dataset using Archer's analysis | pipeline to distinguish noise from a true call. The | normal dataset was created with sequencing data from | seven young, healthy individuals. | whycombinetor wrote: | How am I eliding anything? My statement is that the only | quantitative number in the first 2 paragraphs is the | ">2%" figure. | | I'm also not criticizing the study, I'm criticizing the | article and your defense of it. If "you have to use the | citations given to understand the broader context of the | study" - then if the point of a pop sci article is to | effectively communicate the salience of the paper to lay | audience, then that broader context needs to be | communicated too. | michaericalribo wrote: | No reasonable person reads "found genetic mutations in | every astronaut" to plausibly mean "found bog standard | genetic mutations everyone's got." This is pop science | communication--journalism--not the actual scientific | study. The goal isn't scientific precision, it's | democratizing technical work | whycombinetor wrote: | Really? I think everybody in the entire world knows | somebody who's died from cancer, and the more educated of | those people know that cancer is caused by genetic | mutations. Also the theory of evolution is based on | random genetic mutations - a very popular theory. I think | a reasonable person would therefore know that everybody | gets random genetic mutations over time. | | To put it concretely, if the chance of a random gene | mutation is 10^-4 to 10^-6 per gene per generation, and | there are 37 trillion cells in a human body, each cell | containing about 20k genes, (all numbers from quick | google searches) then the odds of having NO genetic | mutations occur in your body in one day would be (forgive | my back of the envelope math, assuming a generation is 20 | years): (1 - 10^-6)**(37 trillion * 20000 / 365 / 20). My | calculator can't keep enough precision to make this | nonzero. i.e., everyone has genetic mutations constantly | which makes the title of the article completely | uninformative. | gus_massa wrote: | There are some tricks to reduce the number of _important_ | mutations. | | Germinal cells reproduce very slowly, so the eggs and | sperm have fewer mutations. | | Also, cells inside the guts have some cascade method. The | cells near the wall reproduce very seldom, but the | intermediate cells reproduce faster, and the inner cells | reproduce even faster. The inner cells that are | reproducing fast die or get washed away, so the big | number of possible mutations is removed. And the slow | reproducing cells near the wall create more cells to | replace the intermediate cells that replace the inner | cells. | gatane wrote: | The fantastic four were right after all. Space radiation is no | joke. | astrobe_ wrote: | Joke aside, even for regular flight crews and passengers, it is | a subject of concerns [1]. | | [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11603132/ | winternett wrote: | The idea of how they recycle drinking water is also of high | concern to me personally... What if the equipment breaks or | underperforms? | | People constantly act as if science and technology is flawless | in execution, but in reality it rarely is. | | There is also space radiation and other factors that can easily | affect bio organisms, without any way of knowing what happened | here on earth. COmpared to the ideals of Star Trek, we are | still vastly primitive in terms of understanding space... Makes | me kinda sad how much safety needs to be risked just to explore | the outer bounds. | possiblydrunk wrote: | 20+ year old DNA samples, even stored deeply frozen, could | accumulate damage that would be amplified during library prep | prior to sequencing. To make the case, they would really need | appropriate control samples from the same time periods stored | under the same conditions. | themanmaran wrote: | It's also worth noting that the samples they used were from a | totally different age bracket than the astronauts. | | Astronauts (aged 37-67) compared to "seven young, healthy | individuals." | [deleted] | kklisura wrote: | Layman question: Did gravity took any part on life creation on | Earth? Do we even know if life or DNA can even form in non or low | gravitational environment? | mempko wrote: | I think the closest to a 'low gravity' environment is the | oceans. So I suspect yes, life would form in low gravity | environments. It would likely have more rotational symmetry vs | mirror symmetry land animals have. You see a hint of that in | ocean life where things are more...round. | Maursault wrote: | > I think the closest to a 'low gravity' environment is the | oceans. | | The oceans are not a low gravity environment, and gravity is | no less when floating in water. Depending on the density of | the water and the object that is floating, it is buoyancy | that causes floating in water. Gravity works the same on the | floater and the water. | | And we could correctly assume gravity is essential for life, | as without gravity, not even the Earth would not revolve | around the Sun, let alone whatever it is that life is | supposed to form on in low gravity, and we know that light is | essential for life. | earleybird wrote: | Now you've got me wondering - what is the difference between | buoyancy and low gravity (with respect to organism | development/evolution)? Would there be any meaningful | differences structurally? | teeray wrote: | I would think yes. In a submarine, the vessel is buoyant, | yet the contents are subject to regular gravity. I think | the same reasoning applies to a body and its organs and | fluids. Contrast with space where everything floats. | [deleted] | temp12192021 wrote: | Most sealife has mirror symmetry though, doesn't it? | | I guess jellyfish, urchins meet the rotational symmetry | though. | Spooky23 wrote: | That's about aerodynamics (hydrodynamics?), as water is | more resistive than air. | mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote: | It's still an open question how life formed from non-life(look | up abiogenesis). | | It's also an open question whether it formed on Earth at all or | came here from elsewhere. | | So there is no answer to your question as yet. Or at least | there's no scientific consensus on one. | midjji wrote: | We know DNA and and even semi self replicating biochem | molecules can form both in the presence and absence of gravity. | It requires a suitable energy gradient though, and I like the | idea that cyclical changes in the energy gradient are required | for evolution to occur rather than stagnating in a specific | state. This is partly why tidepools are an interesting | candidate for early life. | blueprint wrote: | it's pretty certain that life in this form would not have | formed without gravity though. | anigbrowl wrote: | This links to a (much better) better press release which in turn | links to the original study. | | https://www.newswise.com/articles/researchers-find-spaceflig... | | https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-022-03777-z.pdf | | OP - and HN readers in general - please consider _not_ submitting | the first article you find on an interesting topic. Follow the | links back and submit the _best_ version you can find. You do not | owe the clickbait outlet any sort of reward just because they | promoted a bit of interesting news onto your radar. If there | weren 't so much clickbait, quality news would stand out much | more easily. | | Science writers, maybe you want to inform the public by making | information simple and accessible to a general audience. That's | good. But if you just give them factoids and don't include any | scientific reasoning (like a comparison to the baseline, or | noting the absence of one) then you're just selling sugary snacks | that are not really very nutritious. | swatcoder wrote: | I agree with the sentiment of tracing a headline back to the | topic's best coverage. | | But posting plain studies directly to non-industry forums is | often not ideal. The studies are not written for a general | audience and rely on jargon, shorthand, assumptions, and shared | education that general audience readers are _at least_ as | likely to misinterpret as professional science writers. | | We like to beat up on science writers for writing poor and | misrepresentative coverage of research, but are you sure a | bunch of random (and often compulsively contrarian) | intellectuals trying to earn internet points are an | improvement? | | The best of both worlds is probably to find the best coverage, | and then add the study in a comment. | nightpool wrote: | The GP said that you should submit the _best_ article on any | given topic, not just the original study. In fact, they | specifically called out the press release by the original | authors (which can be viewed on Mt Sinai 's blog: https://www | .mountsinai.org/about/newsroom/2022/fesearchers-f...) as | being "much better" then the original article. I'm not a | researcher, but as a member of the public I also agree that | the press release seems to do a good job at explaining things | for the public while also not dumbing things down or | exaggerating the findings too much. Nobody is saying you | should just post the original study devoid of any context | swatcoder wrote: | Totally. I wasn't challenging the GP, just elaborating on | nuance. | dpifke wrote: | dang has said that HN doesn't outright ban TV news sites like | CNN, despite being against the guidelines[0], because they do | occasionally surface interesting stories. | | But every example of that I've seen has essentially been | blogspam that is better covered by primary sources instead. I | really wish he'd reconsider. | | [0] "If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic." | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | toastedwedge wrote: | My rule of thumb is find a balance between "getting to the | point" and accuracy. A study by itself in a specialized field | will only be intelligible by a select group, but a science- | based news site that can condense it appropriately is my goto. | anoncow wrote: | > If there weren't so much clickbait, quality news would stand | out much more easily. | | So much this. I took a break from some news websites a few | years back, when I recently visited one of them, I was sad to | see that many front page news articles had clickbait titles. | kingkawn wrote: | Somehow each generation is convinced anew that their pearl | clutching will be of any interest to others | mabbo wrote: | Setting aside the question of "compared to what?" (I presume they | mean "more than normal folk"), I think it's more fun to | brainstorm the question of "what could be done to prevent this?" | | I'm guessing that the mutation danger is because space is just | full of radiation that various layers around the earth give us | partial protection from. So what can be done in a hypothetical | spacecraft to get the same level of protection? | | If we want to send people to Mars, or live in large numbers in | space, these are fundamental problems to solve. | [deleted] | mxkopy wrote: | Of the proposed solutions, this one is my favorite: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiotrophic_fungus | | I'd like to think that in this universe the best spacecraft | asymptotically approach being a mushroom | mabbo wrote: | Oh that is a _delightful_ idea. | | Now if we could breed them to also somehow produce usable | fuel as a means of energy storage... | amelius wrote: | And the control group? | fsniper wrote: | And how can we rule out that the mutations are not introduced | in time at rest? All these blood samples are more than 20 years | old. | michaericalribo wrote: | Maybe the scientists manufactured the data with CRISPR. /s | | In seriousness, we can come up with lots of out-there | scenarios. But this finding is intrinsically interesting | enough to warrant discussion, critique, and further analysis. | | Your critiques aren't a failure of the system, or a "dunk" on | the scientific establishment. This open, democratic dialogue | is _the entire point of the scientific publication process._ | fsniper wrote: | I am actually not critical of the deductions.I never even | considered bad intentions. | | Being skeptical is required to get to reality. Do we really | know if the storage procedures/ thawing procedures can't | have a side effect of mutations on the samples? We are | still learning too much about the epigenetics and we | already know low temperatures can have adverse effects on | tissues. So I just voiced my idea on this. | onychomys wrote: | Mutations are caused by errors in DNA repair mechanisms. | Radioactive particles smash into DNA, breaking the bonds that | hold it together. You have a whole system for DNA repair in | your cells, but it's not 100% accurate, and so the more times | you have to repair things, the more errors you're going to | see. | | And the reason you'll never see it in random frozen samples | from 20 years ago is that your cells have to be alive for it | to happen, and those ones aren't. | midjji wrote: | Thing is, if your freze something, that does not stop its | internal decay due to radiation, e.g. carbon 14, kalcium | etc, its just that the errors which occur arent multipled | and the relatively short time is insufficient. But freeze a | corpse for a millenia and it will turn into swiss cheese | from self radiation, even if it was healthy when you froze | it. | [deleted] | fsniper wrote: | Well you are right when you consider that a "mutation" can | just be caused by the DNA copy/repair mechanisms. But what | if a chemical degradation could also cause it? Perhaps a | sample dna lost bases and the sequencing read the resulting | base sequence as a new mutated sequence? I am just being | skeptical. | flobosg wrote: | The samples were stored at -80degC, where any chemical | degradation process would be slowed down immensely if not | come to a virtual halt. | bell-cot wrote: | +10 if I could. Especially since the article notes that such | mutations can be caused by "exposure to excess ultraviolet | radiation". AKA sunburn? | midjji wrote: | There is a difference in where the mutations occur in the | body. Sunburn still primarily causes mutation in and near the | skin. radiation can cause mutations in the organs deeper in | the body which are less robust against radiation, for the | exact reason that the skin is usually a sufficient barrier. | michaericalribo wrote: | I mean, yes, sunburn is excess ultraviolet radiation, but | there are lots of other (more severe) forms and it's pretty | straightforward to understand they mean "excess [beyond the | type experienced in the comparison populations, namely, the | general population, who tend to experience minor exposure to | excessive ultraviolet radiation, aka sunburn]." | | This isn't the "gotcha" you think it is. | csdvrx wrote: | See the twin study, as mentioned by someone else. | areoform wrote: | From the paper, | | > We obtained de-identified whole blood samples from 14 | astronauts who flew relatively short Space Shuttle missions | (median 12 days) between 1998-2001. These samples were stored at | -80degC for ~20 years. Blood samples were collected 10 days | before flight, the day of landing, and 3 days after landing12. | However, for this specific study, only samples from 3 days after | landing (R + 3) were collected as buffy coats (peripheral blood | mononuclear cells - PBMCs). | | One of the issues here is of the biased sample set. To say that | astronauts are drawn from a small pool is a severe | understatement. All astronauts from the stated era have, | - High IQs - Absence of obvious psychopathologies | - Extremely high stress tolerance - Faster (than the | median) reaction times well into middle age - Usually | within 3SD for M/F height, falling between 5' to 6'2 (6'4 at | most) - High educational attainment | | And they've all done, - Scuba diving (sometimes | including extended stays as aquanauts) - Pilot training | (even if you're a scientist astronaut, they'll teach you how to | fly, [edit - as Walter points out flight hours equal radiation | exposure and NASA astronauts usually have to maintain a minimum | of 180 hours per year to retain their flight status]) - | *At least* one sport where they've risked their life - | Undergone wilderness survival training, including a "hell week" | of some sort, somewhere along the line - Experienced near | drowning (part of training) and other similar stressors - | (frequently but not always) Been a part of the military, | including exposure to pollutants that we now know are | carcinogenic or harmful. | | Additionally, during this period, unless they were an | international astronaut, - They would eat | similar foods, from the same places - Live in close | proximity to each other - Grow up in roughly similar | environments (though split between urban/rural environments) | | Of course, not all of these factors will impact their DNA, but | the selection and similar life experiences creates a unique | problem. Until we send more people up, we won't have enough data | to say how space travel impacts and mutates us. | WalterBright wrote: | People who fly a lot get significant cosmic radiation exposure. | gz5 wrote: | From the linked Nature article, my layman's interpretation is it | seems a more severe finding (CHIP) was not found (and was | possibly what they were looking for as CHIP may have indicated a | potentially more material impact), and that this is more like an | early, thin data set which can't be fully evaluated without more | data: | | >We identified 34 nonsynonymous SNVs in 17 known CHdriver genes, | of which TP53 and DNMT3A were the most frequent. Notably, clone | size was small, ranging from 0.10% to 0.95% VAF, and thus did not | achieve the technical threshold to be considered as CHIP | | and | | >Due to the lack of longitudinal samples and small sample size, | conclusions regarding the implications of observed lesions remain | limited, and further studies are required to assess the | penetrance of these clones. | | Is that how the rest of you read this, especially those of you | who are more expert? | Nokinside wrote: | NASA astronauts Mark and Scott Kelly are identical twins and | scientists took the opportunity to do extensive tests with | them. One pair of twins is not conclusive but the study is | interesting. | | The NASA Twins Study: A multidimensional analysis of a year- | long human spaceflight | https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aau8650 | | NASA Twins Study Confirms Preliminary Findings | https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-twins-study-confirms-preli... | michaericalribo wrote: | I agree; that is basically my take, with two slight amendments: | | I didn't have the sense there was a value judgement (more/less | severe), so much as that CHIP is "typical" mutation seen in the | wider population, associated with aging (itself a fascinating | field of research), whereas something novel / nonstandard is | causing CH mutations (space?? That's the implication). | | On sample size, I read it as "this is interesting preliminary | work that is surprisingly robust for the sample we have, and | thus intrinsically notable." But the passage you cite and the | surrounding discussion indicates that this is far from | conclusive--it's a promising / interesting direction for more | research to find out what's the "there" there, if anything. | | These things _could_ be coincidental, but such a high rate of | consistency is strong signal to investigate further. This paper | propagates that surprising result, which is also a unique | analysis because of the lack of data the authors acknowledge. | Without publishing this, others would have no access to even | this preliminary finding. | gnfargbl wrote: | The actual study can be read at | https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-022-03777-z.pdf. | | Methodology is given towards the end of the paper. In particular: | _" Variants [...] were compared with a normal dataset [...] | created with sequencing data from seven young, healthy | individuals."_ | Maursault wrote: | Depending on the actual scope of the study (how many they | sampled), even if samples were anonymously labeled, publication | is a bound to be a violation of the Federal Privacy Rule | protecting astronauts' right to medical privacy. | kingkawn wrote: | I should hope that the general plasticity of an organism would | kick in when the environment so fundamentally shifts ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-09-09 23:00 UTC)