• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

PrPsc in Urine

Mike

Well-known member
ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE
Sensitive Detection of Prion Protein in Human Urine
Harash K. Narang*,2, Ayuna Dagdanova{dagger}, Zhiliang Xie{dagger}, Qiwei Yang{dagger} and Shu G. Chen{dagger},1

* BioTech Global, 22-40 Brentwood Avenue, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE2 3DH, UK; and {dagger} Institute of Pathology, Case Western Reserve University, 2085 Adelbert Road, Cleveland, Ohio 44106

To whom requests for reprints should be addressed at 1 Institute of Pathology, Case Western Reserve University, 2085 Adelbert Road, Cleveland, OH 44106. E-mail: [email protected]

Transmissible spongiform encephalopathies are a group of infectious diseases typically associated with the accumulation of a protease-resistant and ß-sheet–rich prion protein, PrPSc, in affected brains. PrPSc is an altered isoform derived from the host-encoded glycoprotein, PrPC. The expression of PrPC is the highest in brain tissue, but it can also be detected at low levels in peripheral tissue. However, it is unclear whether a significant amount of PrPC is released into body fluid and excreted into urine. We have developed a simple, rapid method for the reliable detection of PrPC in urine from normal subjects by Western blotting. Our method can easily and reliably detect PrPC in apparently healthy individuals using less than 1 ml of urine in which the amount of urinary PrPC is estimated to be in the range of low micrograms/liter.

ABSTRACT
 

Econ101

Well-known member
The transmitting of bse through urine still has biological hurdles to go through although they have probably not been fully researched. Just as bse feed transmission is probably related to the acidity in the digestive tract and genetic disposition in order to transmit, urine transmission probably has its hurdles. The low incidence of transmittability in this manner is really a blessing but still needs to be known as a possibility.

Keeping bovines from exposure still seems to be the logical step in preventing bse. Instead we have had a policy not based on logical "science" but based on comparative advantages certain players in the industry have developed in the processing sector.

To me, this is a huge red flag when it comes to packer's influence in the USDA. It seems this administration would rather side with big money and big business over "sound science" and food safety.

This is r-calf's biggest outcry against the current industry structure.

I have a great disdain for politicians who don't have the integrity to stand up to these pressures. They don't have the competence or integrity to hold the trust society gives them. We all lose.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
ECON wrote"Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:31 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


""This is r-calf's biggest outcry against the current industry structure."




So now your a spokesperson for R-CALF? Maybe you can tell us who you are.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:
ECON wrote"Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:31 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


""This is r-calf's biggest outcry against the current industry structure."




So now your a spokesperson for R-CALF? Maybe you can tell us who you are.

okay, BMR, I would say (and it is only my opinion), one of their most valid points.

I have no affiliation with rcalf as I have told you many many times.

I happen to agree with many of their points however, and totally disagree with many of your tactics.

You seem to be more interested in your own self interest (this is the problem with the current SSGA policies you have shared) than in princples that are worthy of upholding. It bit you in the butt with rcalf via the blue tounge (this isn't my isue) and all Canadian producers should hold the self interest policies you espouse partly responsible for the negativity from U.S. producers prominant in rcalf policies.

Captive supply issues/PSA violations to me have a bigger impact. The fact that you want to blame all these problems on rcalf puts you in the real "blamers" club.

If you can't recognize anything but your own self interest in lieu of worthwhile principles, you will not ever be saved. I mean that in the religious and practical sense.
 

bse-tester

Well-known member
Mike Inserted:

Transmissible spongiform encephalopathies are a group of infectious diseases typically associated with the accumulation of a protease-resistant and ß-sheet–rich prion protein, PrPSc, in affected brains. PrPSc is an altered isoform derived from the host-encoded glycoprotein, PrPC. The expression of PrPC is the highest in brain tissue, but it can also be detected at low levels in peripheral tissue. However, it is unclear whether a significant amount of PrPC is released into body fluid and excreted into urine. We have developed a simple, rapid method for the reliable detection of PrPC in urine from normal subjects by Western blotting. Our method can easily and reliably detect PrPC in apparently healthy individuals using less than 1 ml of urine in which the amount of urinary PrPC is estimated to be in the range of low micrograms/liter.


Mike, this extract is from our test - yes, the one I have - as published by the Journal of Experimental Biology and Medicine. Dr. Ayuna Dagdanova was the one who, along with Dr. Shu Chen, made it work. Dr. Harash Narang is no longer involved and the completed test will now be subjected to two years of validation with Dr. Chen and Dr. Dagdanova.

Ron.
 

bse-tester

Well-known member
Econ wrote:

The transmitting of bse through urine still has biological hurdles to go through although they have probably not been fully researched.

I beg to differ entirely - PrPsc can be easily detected and identified as being present in urine, provided the animal has been infected and has sufficient numbers of it that it is manifested in the blood in order for the kidney's to filter them out and into the urine. We can detect the presence of PrPsc long (years) before the animal or human displays clinical symptoms.

The hurdles you mention have all been cleared by our group Econ. For the rest of the prion researchers, they are still wondering how to do it and most have read our Paper by now and have seen the methodology and how it works. Ron.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
bse-tester said:
Econ wrote:

The transmitting of bse through urine still has biological hurdles to go through although they have probably not been fully researched.

I beg to differ entirely - PrPsc can be easily detected and identified as being present in urine, provided the animal has been infected and has sufficient numbers of it that it is manifested in the blood in order for the kidney's to filter them out and into the urine. We can detect the presence of PrPsc long (years) before the animal or human displays clinical symptoms.

The hurdles you mention have all been cleared by our group Econ. For the rest of the prion researchers, they are still wondering how to do it and most have read our Paper by now and have seen the methodology and how it works. Ron.

I meant transmitting it to another animal. It still has to be licked or whatever by the bull and then you have the same kind of factors that allow it to become clinical in the other animals as the contaminated feed does.

I am not knocking your research at all.

The idiots at the USDA should have had your stuff on the fast track instead of playing their "we can't find bse under the gold standard in our herd" to try to sweep it under the rug instead of dealing with it with the best available science.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
reader (the Second) said:
I realize that sarcasm was implied but I can tell you I won't be eating beef, even occasionally in Sask or Alb. You can mock us all you want, but I represent an emerging class of consumers who will want increased surveillance and prevention and derision towards your potential consumers is not beneficial.

reader2- You can't tell them that...You will break Big Muddy and the Canadians bubble...Its all a protectionist conspiracy by R-CALF and its members--real consumers aren't concerned about what they eat or where it comes from... Canada doesn't think that anyone else besides R-CALF even knows BSE exists...:wink:

Some Canadians and NCBA have the same theory-- "them thar dumb folk will eat whatever we throw in front of them and like it cause thats why we pay the checkoff to tell them to do" :wink: :lol:
 

mrj

Well-known member
OT, that is one of your more ridiculous, as well as vicious statements!


NO ONE in either of those fine organizations you love to hate has that attitude. Then there is the little fact that most of us also eat, and feed our families on the beef we raise.

You are so obviously ignorant of what is done with beef checkoff money as to be an embarrassment to your state checkoff representatives responsible for reporting to your organization.

Of course, if you have the courage to accept responsiblity for your own knowledge, you could check out www.beefboard.org or www.beef.org and see what REALLY is done with your checkoff dollars.

Econ, what makes you so certain that USDA is not using the best science recommended by the international scientific community re. BSE? Has that community yet accepted and approved this urine test we have been led to believe by some is already in use, and which the posts NOW show are PUBLISHED in the Journal of EXPERIMENTAL Biology and Medicine, with some TWO YEARS of validation testing?

MRJ
 

Econ101

Well-known member
MRJ said:
OT, that is one of your more ridiculous, as well as vicious statements!


NO ONE in either of those fine organizations you love to hate has that attitude. Then there is the little fact that most of us also eat, and feed our families on the beef we raise.

You are so obviously ignorant of what is done with beef checkoff money as to be an embarrassment to your state checkoff representatives responsible for reporting to your organization.

Of course, if you have the courage to accept responsiblity for your own knowledge, you could check out www.beefboard.org or www.beef.org and see what REALLY is done with your checkoff dollars.

Econ, what makes you so certain that USDA is not using the best science recommended by the international scientific community re. BSE? Has that community yet accepted and approved this urine test we have been led to believe by some is already in use, and which the posts NOW show are PUBLISHED in the Journal of EXPERIMENTAL Biology and Medicine, with some TWO YEARS of validation testing?

MRJ

BSE tester has expressed his run around that the system has given to him on validating his tests. If this is the system, we will get only tests filled with things other than science as the standard. The USDA got caught with their pants down on that one and everyone but you seemed to have noted their nakedness on the issue.

My criticisms are of that process. They should be your criticisms too unless you are willing to accept manipulated science as "sound science".

I am not.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
MRJ said:
OT, that is one of your more ridiculous, as well as vicious statements!


NO ONE in either of those fine organizations you love to hate has that attitude. Then there is the little fact that most of us also eat, and feed our families on the beef we raise.

You are so obviously ignorant of what is done with beef checkoff money as to be an embarrassment to your state checkoff representatives responsible for reporting to your organization.

Of course, if you have the courage to accept responsiblity for your own knowledge, you could check out www.beefboard.org or www.beef.org and see what REALLY is done with your checkoff dollars.

Econ, what makes you so certain that USDA is not using the best science recommended by the international scientific community re. BSE? Has that community yet accepted and approved this urine test we have been led to believe by some is already in use, and which the posts NOW show are PUBLISHED in the Journal of EXPERIMENTAL Biology and Medicine, with some TWO YEARS of validation testing?

MRJ

BSE tester has expressed his run around that the system has given to him on validating his tests. If this is the system, we will get only tests filled with things other than science as the standard. The USDA got caught with their pants down on that one and everyone but you seemed to have noted their nakedness on the issue.

My criticisms are of that process. They should be your criticisms too unless you are willing to accept manipulated science as "sound science".

I am not.


Again, you do not know what you claim to know.

It is your word on "manipulated science" which I neither accept nor believe.

I WANT science to be wary of 'new' tests and to require them to jump through the proper science based hoops to better insure valid and accurate tests. You appear to want anything that might damage USDA accepted, judging by your own words.

MRJ
 

Econ101

Well-known member
MRJ said:
Econ101 said:
MRJ said:
OT, that is one of your more ridiculous, as well as vicious statements!


NO ONE in either of those fine organizations you love to hate has that attitude. Then there is the little fact that most of us also eat, and feed our families on the beef we raise.

You are so obviously ignorant of what is done with beef checkoff money as to be an embarrassment to your state checkoff representatives responsible for reporting to your organization.

Of course, if you have the courage to accept responsiblity for your own knowledge, you could check out www.beefboard.org or www.beef.org and see what REALLY is done with your checkoff dollars.

Econ, what makes you so certain that USDA is not using the best science recommended by the international scientific community re. BSE? Has that community yet accepted and approved this urine test we have been led to believe by some is already in use, and which the posts NOW show are PUBLISHED in the Journal of EXPERIMENTAL Biology and Medicine, with some TWO YEARS of validation testing?

MRJ

BSE tester has expressed his run around that the system has given to him on validating his tests. If this is the system, we will get only tests filled with things other than science as the standard. The USDA got caught with their pants down on that one and everyone but you seemed to have noted their nakedness on the issue.

My criticisms are of that process. They should be your criticisms too unless you are willing to accept manipulated science as "sound science".

I am not.


Again, you do not know what you claim to know.

It is your word on "manipulated science" which I do not neither accept nor believe.

I WANT science to be wary of 'new' tests and to require them to jump through the proper science based hoops to better insure valid and accurate tests. You appear to want anything that might damage USDA accepted, judging by your own words.

MRJ

MRJ, what do you know about the run around the USDA is giving people like bse tester?

The USDA should never, never, discourage new developments in science that puts ahead of the old, they should find ways to encourage new and better science.

You are right that I know little about this issue other than what bse tester has said on this board. What he has said is concerning.

The USDA got caught not going with the best available science by Phillis Fong and all you can do is get your pom poms out and do some more cheers for them and the NCBA. You are incredible.

If the USDA is this slow at developing their food safety measures an ID program would be meaningless.

Keep cheering for the incompetence in the USDA/NCBA. They might need the company.
 

bse-tester

Well-known member
When we presented our findings - our test protocol - to the USDA, they told us "Thank you very much for your interest and sent us a package for the importing of "Live Viral Substances into the Unted States." We tried to explain to them that our test contains no living organisms and is made up of simple chemicals that can literally be purchased at any drug store!! They gave us a complete run-around that was as good as any Groucho Marx Movie I have ever seen.

The CFIA must have gone to the same school and told us the same thing. As far as having a test that is made up of "Sound Science," we belief that ours is probably one of, if not the soundest test there is and we intend to prove that by having it validated and all of the data from that validation presented to the world authorities in Brussels and in Paris.

For those who seem to want to slam our test - consider that it was proven at the United States National Prion Surveillance Center in Cleveland and that same laboratory has agreed to conduct the validation process for us. If they have accpeted the fact that our test has the required "Sound Science" tag attatched to it, that is all I care about.

The USDA chose to turn us down - let that tell you that they also considered that your cattle and any risk of a human contracting vCJD, must be acceptable losses and were, or are of no consequence to them as long as they maintain their control over the testing. All we wanted them to do was to look at the science within our test and help us develop it, not only for the sake of the US and Canadian ranchers and their livelihood, but for the USDA also in that they too would have a test that works, instead of the current and not so perfect protocol they like to use.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Seems like they could make up a test pretty easy to see if your system could work, bse tester.

The only problem is that the USDA is so incompetent that they dont know how to test as Phyllis Fong pointed out. Either that or they dont want to.

It is as if they hired a bunch of MRJ s or something. :lol: :lol:
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Reader it's a good thing that it's not passed by the urine eh reader?

Last time I looked organic raised cattle still had to PEE.

no guarantees in life, danger lies along a spectrum, on the other hand I wouldn't eat any type of deer or elk given that CWD is more transmissable it appears among animals.

I realize that sarcasm was implied but I can tell you I won't be eating beef, even occasionally in Sask or Alb. You can mock us all you want, but I represent an emerging class of consumers who will want increased surveillance and prevention and derision towards your potential consumers is not beneficial.


Reader you are probably safer eating beef in Alberta and Sask. as we have a much higher rate of BSE testing then in any US state. We find our BSE cows. Couldn't organic cows get "Atypical" BSE
 

Murgen

Well-known member
I think I'll quite eating beef and stick with the "skin on" chicken.

I'd rather take my chances with obesity! :shock: :shock: :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Big Muddy rancher said:
reader (the Second) said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Reader it's a good thing that it's not passed by the urine eh reader?

Last time I looked organic raised cattle still had to PEE.

no guarantees in life, danger lies along a spectrum, on the other hand I wouldn't eat any type of deer or elk given that CWD is more transmissable it appears among animals.

I realize that sarcasm was implied but I can tell you I won't be eating beef, even occasionally in Sask or Alb. You can mock us all you want, but I represent an emerging class of consumers who will want increased surveillance and prevention and derision towards your potential consumers is not beneficial.


Reader you are probably safer eating beef in Alberta and Sask. as we have a much higher rate of BSE testing then in any US state. We find our BSE cows. Couldn't organic cows get "Atypical" BSE

But even if you are of the belief Canadian beef is safer- US consumers can't make that choice...Its all thrown in a generic pile along with US, Aussie, Mexican, and beef from God only knows where- labeled with a USDA inspected stamp and passed off as US beef...... :(
 

Murgen

Well-known member
They've already made the choice if they are still buying beef! If they are worried, they can look at the package for the "made in America" stamp and if they don't see that guarnatee and feel that only US beef is safe, they won't buy it!

Are they looking for the "not from a Avian flu country" sticker on Chicken?
 
Top