From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition,sci.med
Subject: Re: Canadians Find Antifreeze in Fleas - SBH !
Date: 23 Oct 2005 12:26:17 -0700
Message-ID: <1130095577.220182.272910@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>

Pizza Girl. wrote:
> It has to do with SBH's interests.
>
> Did you have to re-post the whole article again to complain about it?
>
> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Vks6f.18364$QE1.16137@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
> > What does this have to do with nutrition? Are you suggesting that future
> > victims of car crashes drink this "antifreeze" just in case they don't make
> > it?
> >
> > This sort of "antifreeze" has been described before in other animals. While
> > it might help crops survive cold temperatures a little longer and help
> > inhibit freezer  burn, it doesn't seem to be a nutrition issue. And,
> > certainly, it is too premature to even consider such uses.
> >
> > Jeff



COMMENT:

I read sci.med and sci.cryonics, both of which would have been more
appropriate.

In short, I'll have to read the full article on the springtail
ice-nucleation inhibitor. But as pointed out, several varieties of this
are know in fish and insects, so a third type is interesting, but not
earthshaking. They're all about equally effective.

As for helping with organ preservation, these things will, but not in
the way the article suggests. There's no point in cooling an organ from
present shipping temp of 2 C (about what you get on ice) to (say) -4 C.
The difference in storage time is minimal, and you just expose the
organ to damage in places where the anti-nucleator didn't penetrate.
Many organs have such (for example, inside the urine collection system
of stored kidneys).

Ice nucleators do have a place in protecting organs from ice formation
during the process which takes them to the solid ice-free state of
vitrification, and back. But the best anti-nucleators for that are
synthetic, not the natural proteins and sugars found in cold-adapted
insects and fish.

A colleague of mine viewed the article with some exasperation, since he
developed one of the best classes of synthetic antinucleators, and has
at least one genuine advance in organ preservation REJECTED by
_Science_. But there they publish this junk, which is unlikely ever to
be useful for anything but has a lot of hype about how it one day MIGHT
be useful. Whoever believed all that stuff knows nothing about
cryobiology.  My colleague speculates that when human organs really ARE
first preserved for the first time permanently at low temp, _Science_
will still be publishing artsy little pieces about the odd properties
of odd Canadian insects. These guys who edit science journals are not
exactly driven by practicality.

SBH