Sickle Cell | Arthritis Information

OK, I don't have time today as I have to run around like a chicken with my head cut off for various things for job and home. Yep, I'm going back to work. But last night as I was getting ready for bed and thinking about that Steroid/Vitamin D thing in the Parkinson's thread, I thought to myself - self - what if all AI diseases are genetic mutations to keep the body running as best as possible with an intracellular infection of some kind. Think 'you have a cold' - but you can still go to work. Think RA - well, it takes a LOT more energy to still work, but, it can be done. To a point.

Then I thought of Sickle Cell. I had a HS science class where we studied HS genetics. Yes, this was the Dark Ages and things have changed a great deal since then but...

First they did the 4 box thingy with the genes for eye color. We all remember that. If a brown eyed person with a recessive blue married a blue eyed person, in theory, 1 kid would have a Brown/brown, one kid would be Blue/blue and the other two would be Brown/Blue.

Then they had us do the same thing for Sickle Cell. I don't remember how it broke down EXCEPT - the kid without some gene would die of Malaria and the kid with both genes would die from a fast moving fatal Sickle Cell BUT the two kids with half of each genes could live for a long time, in pain, with a sort of muted Sickle Cell. Am I making sense here?

Somehow Sickle Cell's elongated blood cells protected the body for dying of malarial infection and/or quickly dying from the disease.

Could gene expression serve the body instead of the disease?

Does anybody have any connection to Sickle Cell peeps and mind sharing? If you do, send me a PM. I don't know when I'd have time to research this...but I'm intrigued.

Pip

PS - this would tie into how smoking for most AI diseases can bring on this junk - but can be neuroprotective for Parkinsons' peeps.

There are lots of mutations like this. One copy offers protection from some environmental insult (infection, adverse conditions, etc) but two copies causes serious/fatal disease. Cystic fibrosis is one example. It is thought that one copy offered our ancestors some protection from dysentery (or was it cholera?) but two copies causes cystic fibrosis. Hummm.... interesting.

Of course, you will be letting us know what you find out?

I think it absolutely is possible that gene expression can serve the body. I think it also is one of the reasons why some of have severe RA while others have mild.....just alot of variation.

I don't have any sickle cell experience. I live too far North I'm afraid. I agree with this concept.. well, I believe it to be so.. I have AI disease on both sides of the family... but I was the only one to have JRA... I think it's because there are two RA genes and therefore (possibly recessive?) I have the bad mix?

Keep us in the loop, Pip!

Had to smile when I saw your post. I am teaching my student Punnet Squares right now. Actually had a genetic counselor in today to talk to them.

When you inherit the two genes for each trait, the dominant one is the one that is expressed. You still carry the recessive-if one was in fact passed on. That just makes you a carrier. Actually, the majority of the population carries at least one "disease" gene in their system. Even with sickle cell, caring one gene won't do anything harmful to you. You just have the potential of passing it on.

As for sickle cell /malaria-there is something there. It's because the illness involves hemoglobin. For children who are carriers, there does seem to be an increased protection from the disease. Something with the immune system. But, this protection decreases as the get older. Not sure why. I'll see if I can find out.

Did some digging--and of course what I read may no longer be accurate...but it seems that they think the gene for RA is recessive. But, even then they say that they don't know what "triggers" the illness. If it is recessive, that would explain why most of us don't pass it along to our children.

Of course, I am not a genetic counselor. If somebody knows something else Iwould love to know. I love genetics---glad we spend about a month on it at school.

Rockyd -

But if it were recessive, wouldn't at least 50% of the population have the recessive gene using those Punnet Squares?

And wouldn't constant breeding over centuries bring it much further out into the population. I'm thinking of the Tay Sachs kids in the Bayou. When the English(???) wanted the land the Arcadians had in Canada, they rounded them up and put them on ships and transplanted them to the bayou's near New Orleans. Over the centuries those familes intermarried and eventually became known as the Cajun's and their kids, like 25%, have Tay Sachs now. A disease originally thought to be Euro-Judiaca if I remember correctly. Aren't they the reason they found the Tay Sachs gene first for pre-natal testing?

I wish my memory was better.

Pip

I have a question...

I looked up dominate and recessive genes thingy yesterday on eye color. I wanted to know what were the chances that my kids had in having blue eyes like their daddy. Both of my kids have brown eyes and dirty blonde hair. My kids get their eye color from me.

Then today, I was wondering if my genes were the dominate one out of me & hubby. And if so... would my kids be more likely to get RA, because my genes to be more dominate than hubbies?

But after reading the recent posts on this thread I am not sure.

I am the only one in my family who has J/RA. And I believe I am the only one on my dads side that has J/RA. There are other forms of arthritis on both sides of the families but none are RA. Mostly OA.

A person has to have the gene to pass it on. Most of the population doesn't have the gene. It's the same as any other illness. Thankfully, the majority of major illness are recessive and aren't commonly carried. Otherwise, we would be a pretty miserable group of people.

For each gene that is passed-there is truly a 50% chance of what a parent passes down. Each is also sorted independently. So the eye color gene has nothing to do with the hair color gene. If you know enough of your family background, you will no some of your traits. But, people carry so many recessive traits-it is often hard to know what the actually alleles(genes) are. Ex: I know my genotype for eye color is Bb. I have brown eyes. The only reason I know I have the recessive gene is that my father has blue eyes. That means he had to have the two recessive traits so he could only pass that one on to me. Obviously, my mom passed on the dominant brown eye color. I don't know her genotype for eye color since both her parents had brown eyes. She could also be Bb or BB. That is why genetic counselors are so necessary. Traits can be "hidden" for generations.

Joonie--if they have brown eyes and their dad has blue, then their genotype for eyecolor is Bb. They can still pass on that blue trait to their children-if their partner also passes on the recessive trait.

Rockyd -

But as far as I can tell, nobody is look to see if non-sick people have these genes. They're only looking at sick people for commonalities so they can find an area to exploit ie. 'therapies'.

Pip

That is why the Human Genome Project is so cool. They have completely mapped out the human genome. Using this, they are able to identify what genes cause what illnesses. Sometimes it is actually a mutated gene that causes the disease.

There are tons of traits that people don't carry. I know that my son doesn't have the gene for colorblindness. There are about 25,000 genes in the human body-some say more, some say less. Anyway, for each gene, there is a dominant and recessive trait. By the time you finish shuffling all that out---well, it gets kinda crazy.

My FIL is colorblind. My in-laws think I am colorblind, because I can "see" both colors on the colorblind test thingies. Colorblindless is a sex-linked trait. Meaning it is carried on the X chromosome. If the "sick" X it paired with a healthy X, then the individual would be a carrier but wouldn't be colorblind. That is why men are mainly colorblind. They are XY so there isn't a healthy X to win. Females are XX so the other X will beat out the "sick"one. But, that individual can still pass on the "sick' X to their child.

For a female to be colorblind, her dad would have to be, and her mom would have to be a carrier. Then there would be a 25% chance of the female inheriting the trait.

BUT---There are other issues that can affect eyes and that could possible affect how one sees color.

well it was a blotch test. You know where there is a hidden thing for colorblind people. And I could make out what the colorblind thing was. Normal people were to see "6". I made out the "9" and the "6". No one else could see the "9" except me and FIL.

I do not know much about my dad. I never really knew him. I do not think he was colorblind, my mom never mentioned it. Or he never told her he was.

Hmmmm....maybe you are just gifted since you could see both!Maybe... but it worried MIL when my son would call something green, blue. Because that is what FIL sees... green stuff as being blue.

So... MIL thought for a while son was colorblind. But... it turned out son was messing with MIL on purpose. He knew the colors, and what they were... he just was being a booger. She realized he was messing with her, after he told her the grass was green and the sky was blue. But if she asked him what color the leaves were he would say green, I mean blue. He was messing with her for a while. I knew he knew his colors. Because I could ask him to go get me my green shirt out of my room and he would bring me my green shirt. I only have one green shirt I own.

joonie2009-01-09 12:20:05Interesting question.Joonie -

I'm sure he's not colorblind....but I was thinking. Most people don't realize they're color blind because they learn how to recognized secondary signals like the 'green sweater has a yolked collar.' Kind of how people who can't read can navigate a freeway. They learn the way to work so don't need to know that the exit they use is "Main Street" or whatever.

Pip

That's true. Most colorblindness is not caught until an eye exam. Some people go their whole lives without having an eye test. I know they tested depth perception at my son's 4yr. old checkup but I don't think colorblindness. Schools try to catch kids before they get too much older. All kids are given vision screening in our schools in 7th grade(might be earlier but I don't work with that age).

I don't have depth perception. Just found that out.

Pip

I don't know why, but when I was in tech school I hated anything to do with Punnett squares! They frustrated the ever living crap out of me. Then, after graduation something clicked and I was like ohh...these are easy. I was always best in blood banking and detection and identification of unexpected antibodies in individuals requiring transfusions.

Sorry PIP, don't know anyone with sickle cell disease. I did know someone however,that had sickle cell trait. Don't know where she is now haven't seen her in years.

I'm wondering how I'm the only person in my family to have RA. There literally is not another soul in my family that has RA. None..must have been silently expressed in someone and I just got lucky?

Bob

[QUOTE=Pip!]I don't have depth perception. Just found that out.

Pip

[/QUOTE]

I hope that you aren't out there driving then [QUOTE=buckeye][QUOTE=Pip!]I don't have depth perception. Just found that out. [/QUOTE]

My hubby says I have a depth perception problem. My vision is so bad without my glasses I am restricted to wearing them while driving. It is on my permit. But the depth perception thing... no one but hubby has said anything about it.

Oh forgot to say... I always think things are closer than they appear.

Oh and daughter gets her eyes screened every year at school. This year they are doing a dental screening too.

Without my glasses everything is blurry and I cannot see clearly but 2ft in front of me without my glasses. If I drop a small object in the floor while I am standing or sitting in a chair, I cannot see it until I get closer to the floor.

Half the time... I have a hard time finding my glasses. SO... I am "blind" without my glasses and cannot find my glasses without my glasses LOL! It is a sad situtation!

joonie2009-01-10 14:12:22Maybe it's not depth perception then. This is what I found out at that eye exam I had the other day. Apparently I can't see the 'fly' that is 3D. They only showed me that with both eyes tho - not trying the left eye which is working correctly. Do you need both eyes for that one? My daughter, who has a lazy eye that they're working on 'hooking up to her brain correctly' can see it.

Hmmmmm.

Pip

I am a crappy driver tho.I can't see the fly and have never seen anything 3D ever. Have no clue what I am missing.

I am also the worst acolyte in the history of the United Methodist church.
Ok, that one's over my head. [QUOTE=Pip!]Ok, that one's over my head.[/QUOTE]

Acolyte - had to light the candles in the front of the church and then put them out. You know that long thing you use? Always missed. My mom would sit in the congregation, dying. I finally figured out how to do it - touch the candleholder with one hand so I knew where it was, and light it with the other.
LOL -

Now I get it!

Pip

I am so bad at light the church candles because I have the shakes really bad. I also don't have anyone that I can find or know of in my family that has ra. Lots of them have oa but not ra.