Here’s Why This 2019 Nobel Prize Is Breathtaking…

awards, health and wellness, Medicine, Nobel Prize 5 Minutes

Unknown-7

Do any of the following apply to you?

—You’re hard-pressed to find some good news in the public sphere
—You’re troubled about the anti-scientist trends swirling around
—You have, have had, or know someone who’s had anemia
—You have, have had, or know someone who’s had a heart attack or stroke
—You have, have had, or know someone who’s had cancer
—You’d like to live in a place with a higher altitude than you currently can handle
—You’d like to improve your sports performance

If so, you may find the 2019 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine as exciting as I do. And the above list of diseases and circumstances is merely the beginning of what scientists believe will be the impact of the work the Nobel Committee has just recognized.

The three recipients, two Americans and a Brit, pieced together a series of discoveries—their own and some preceding and/or complementing their work—to discern what one scientist called the “thermostat” that enables cells to regulate the amount of oxygen needed to do its work: convert food into energy. The Nobel Committee referred to this mechanism as “one of life’s most essential adaptive processes.”

As the Nobel Prize press release states:

“The fundamental importance of oxygen has been understood for centuries, but how cells adapt to changes in levels of oxygen has long been unknown.”

The “thermostat” the honorees discovered is comprised of a series of molecular occurrences by which cells sense too much or too little oxygen and respond accordingly.

Describing the Breathtaking Work

(From the Nobel press release)

“Thanks to the groundbreaking work of these Nobel Laureates, we know much more about how different oxygen levels regulate fundamental physiological processes. Oxygen sensing allows cells to adapt their metabolism to low oxygen levels: for example, in our muscles during intense exercise.

“Other examples of adaptive processes controlled by oxygen sensing include the generation of new blood vessels and the production of red blood cells. Our immune system and many other physiological functions are also fine-tuned by the O2-sensing machinery.

“Oxygen sensing has even been shown to be essential during fetal development for controlling normal blood vessel formation and placenta development.”

These are the three new Nobel Laureates:  William G. Kaelin Jr., MD, of Harvard University in Boston, Massachusetts; Gregg L. Semenza, MD, PhD, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland; and Sir Peter J. Ratcliffe, FMedSci, of Oxford University in the United Kingdom.

Concerning the relevance of their findings to major diseases, the Washington Post  quoted Isha Jain, a scientist at the University of California in San Francisco:

“If you think of the main causes of death in the US, three out of five are related to lack of oxygen,” [including heart attack, stroke, and respiratory diseases]. “Understanding how the body senses and responds to low oxygen is pretty fundamental to all these diseases.”

Semenza said he and his colleagues hope that new therapies may increase the passage of blood into tissue with reduced blood flow “in diseases such as coronary heart disease and also limb ischemia, which is a major problem, particularly in diabetics, leading in some cases to limb amputation.”

And then there’s cancer. The Nobel press release explains:

“The oxygen-regulated machinery has an important role in cancer. In tumors, the oxygen-regulated machinery is utilized to stimulate blood vessel formation and reshape metabolism for effective proliferation of cancer cells.”

Semenza told the Associated Press:

“Whereas most of the chemotherapy drugs are designed to kill dividing cells that are well oxygenated, there are no treatments that are approved to treat the hypoxic cells within the cancer. We believe it’s these cells that survive the therapy and come back and kill the patient.”

From “Bench to Bedside”…

Or from lab to life-saving: such action is well under way, the press release reports.

“Intense ongoing efforts in academic laboratories and pharmaceutical companies are now focused on developing drugs that can interfere with different disease states by either activating, or blocking, the oxygen-sensing machinery.”

The first clinical application, a drug to combat anemia, was recently approved in China, and it is now under consideration in several European countries.

Semenza’s work was seminal to the total effort. In the 1990s, he and his group identified genes that were activated when oxygen levels were low to raise the levels of erythropoietin (EPO), a hormone secreted by the kidneys essential to producing the oxygen-laden red blood cells.

The oxygen-sensing mechanism was originally believed to be located only in the kidneys, but both Semenza and Ratcliffe subsequently found, among other things, that it exists in nearly all cells.

Moving from the profound to the less-so, The Washington Post notes that:

“This is the same basic mechanism behind doping, in which endurance athletes try to increase their supply of oxygen-carrying red blood cells.”

Though Semenza’s early article describing that research has now received thousands of journal citations, it was initially rejected by the “top tier journals,” which, he said, “didn’t find it to be of sufficient interest to warrant publication.”

(A note of encouragement to all who aspire to publication in any field of endeavor, don’t you think?)

For those who are interested in the scientific nitty-gritty, the Nobel release provides the road map of individual discoveries by the three researchers and others that yielded this dramatic finding.

Lessons Beyond the Discoveries Themselves

One of the things I especially like about this story is that these men, while working independently over decades, also shared their unpublished data with one another—“sometimes at scientific meetings, sometimes at the bar,” said Kaelin.

No secret patents here; no rivalry to be “the first.” As one made a discovery that he knew was an important piece of the puzzle, he described it to his colleagues.

I’ve no idea whether, or to what extent, this collaborative approach was influenced by their funding sources, but it’s worth noting that a National Institutes of Health (NIH) press release touted the US government’s role in supporting both American scientists’ work, and the American Heart Association stated it underwrote Semenza’s early work. The European Research Council (ERC) supported Ratcliffe’s work.

Two more issues are worth noting. One is that Semenza, who is a professor of genetics at Johns Hopkins, credited his wonderful high school biology teacher, the late Rose Nelson.

“She used to say to us, ‘When you win your Nobel Prize, I don’t want you to forget that you learned that here.’ She just assumed that one of us was going to do that…She was my inspiration, and I think that is the importance of teachers, to serve as that kind of spark.”

The other is Kaelin’s emphasis, as the Washington Post reported:

 “The prize underscores the importance of doing research to follow curiosity and unravel basic biology. He and the other scientists hoped, but did not know, that unraveling how cells sense oxygen could spark ideas for new approaches for human diseases, including stroke and cancer.”

Said Kaelin:

“This kind of research is increasingly under threat. It’s much easier for fundraisers and policymakers to say we will support scientists, but…tell us how it will improve outcomes in five years.

“When you’re doing real science, you have to be prepared to take the road where it takes you—and if you’re doing science, it’s hard to predict where the road is going to take you.”

Will you join me in a virtual round of applause for scientists dwelling for decades on basic research, facilitated by public funding?

Their research won’t always take us where these three eminent researchers have—but when it does, the benefits to us, individually and worldwide, can be immeasurable.

Annie

Published by annieasksyou

I've been a nonfiction writer for many years, exploring diverse topics that pique my curiosity, as noted in my first blog posting (Greetings!). I'm seeking dialogue with others committed to joining me in this exploration, sharing my conviction that different views can be exchanged in a respectful, civil discourse where we can learn from one another and be agreeable, even when we disagree. These postings depend for their enrichment on your participation: your ideas, insights, knowledge, opinions, and personal stories.

Published

30 thoughts on “Here’s Why This 2019 Nobel Prize Is Breathtaking…”

    2. Annie, I just discovered your blog and am thoroughly impressed with your post! I do hope this is the breakthrough that’s needed to cure so many ailments! So bravo for research, funding for research, education, Nobel Awards, those who report on all the above, but most of all to curiosity, which is often undervalued! I’ll check in frequently
      Do you have a set day of the week when you post? Mona

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Hi, Mona, and welcome to annieasksyou! I’m so pleased you like my post: its content, which you captured so well in your comment, is very important to me in these anti-science times, and I’d love to see it get broader circulation.
        I usually post on Sunday evenings or Monday am. I welcome your return visits.
        I took a quick look at one of your posts and will be back when I can linger.
        Thanks so much.
        Cheers,
        Annie

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Here’s to science and public funding for research!! In a time when people are critical of experts and scientists are being muzzled by governments it is so refreshing to see the results of the work of these researchers being applauded.
    As a cancer patient it makes me hopeful to see new breakthroughs that may result in better treatments in years to come.
    Thank-you, Annie, for this excellent article!

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. You are most welcome, Janine! Yes, it is exciting to see the broad implications for humanity of work that starts out as a scientist’s following his/her curiosity, unsure whether that diligence will even lead to anything meaningful. We’re so fortunate that they persist–and that they have the funding to carry them through.

      All good wishes,
      Annie

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  3. When smart people think about and investigate situations, good things sometimes result. And sometimes they are rewarded with Nobel prizes.

    Hello Annie. Thanks for writing this essay. I probably would not have known about these scientists otherwise.

    Neil Scheinin

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Hi, Neil. It was my pleasure, truly. The general point of supporting basic science seems so important, and the specifics of this oxygen-related story seemed so far-reaching as to be breathtaking. (I am fond of bad puns.) I appreciated your comment.
      Cheers,
      Annie

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

    1. Hi, Matthew. Good to hear from you!

      Yes, the drudgery and mediocrity are bad enough, but the anti-science approach is even worse. I don’t think you’re experiencing that as much “across the pond,” are you?

      Like

      Reply

      1. I get the impression maybe not as much, but it is definitely there. I always think it is a great shame when someone who is a bona-fide expert in their field has their work disparage because of a dislike of science as a whole. Love your blog, Annie. Keep writing!

        Liked by 1 person

      2. I agree it’s a great shame—as well as a threat to us all, as in the climate change denial and anti-vaccination movements.
        Thank you so much for your kind words, Matthew. As you know, the feeling is mutual!

        Liked by 1 person

  5. How wonderful! Thank you for this post and the encouraging news on so many levels. Hope abounds. Skill is valued. Science triumphs. Collaboration and a spirit of academic exchange are so great. Love your work, Annie. Keep writing!

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Well, you summed it up beautifully in just a few pithy sentences! And as always, I am so very grateful for your encouragement. But is the time stamp correct? Did you really write this at 4:45 am? Friend, you need some sleep!

      Like

      Reply

  6. Fascinating piece Annie. My triplet grandchildren were born three months premature at 2lbs. each. They probably would have not survived if born 40 years ago. Our family has a lot to be thankful for in the advances of modern medicine.

    Like

    Reply

  7. Hi, Annie.

    It is so refreshing to read about the groundbreaking work these scientists are doing. This is an antidote for the current anti-science attitudes being pushed by our President.

    I love the way the three prize winners put good science before personal fame and I love how they are being rewarded for it, which I’m sure was not their motive at all.

    And kudos to all the teachers and parents who inspire their students and children to follow their dreams!

    Thank you for posting this!

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Indeed—all your points are precisely what drew me to this story. Unfortunately, though, the anti-science trend extends beyond this president and the US borders (see my exchange with one of my fellow bloggers from across the pond). And I think there’s long been tension for those dedicated to basic science in this results-oriented world. That’s why I felt it was so important to close with Kaelin’s pronouncement.

      We must back up our kudos to these inspiring teachers by making sure they’re paid not merely adequately—but well! No more dipping into their own pockets to buy supplies. Though that’s another blog post…

      Thanks for your encouraging comment!

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  8. Great post. I wish more people would embrace, rather than deny, science. And would understand that if humanity is to survive and thrive, it will be due to scientific advancements, not religious dogma.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Interesting, Marleen. Thanks for attaching. I saw a lot about adaptation in the articles and releases I reviewed, but my understanding was the body seeks balance—not that deliberately reducing oxygen was good for the heart in healthy people. But I don’t know…

      Like

      Reply

  11. Many thanks for this educational and inspiring post, Annie. I must confess that I read many articles about scientific ignoramuses like anti-vaxers and climate change deniers, but not nearly enough about actual scientists who devote themselves to making the world a better place. Your focus on the good guys is much appreciated.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Hi, Gail. Great to hear from you. Your reaction was just what I’d hoped for when I read about—and decided to write about— these remarkable men and their amazing accomplishments. And without the Nobel Committee’s wisdom, I wonder how many of us would even know about their years of selfless efforts, which will hugely benefit humanity in ways that aren’t even yet apparent. Thanks for your comment!

      Like

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s