User talk:Dehringb

wiki partner spring 2014: User:Sbash71

wiki partner spring 2014:User:WlfSprtd23 --WlfSprtd23 (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

3' UTR summary contributions
Biological techniques to study 3'UTRs:

Computational approaches, based on sequence analysis, predict the existence of AREs in approximately 5 to 8% of human 3’ UTRs and of one or more miRNA targets in as many as 60% or more of human 3’ UTRs. Experimental approaches have been used to define the complement of RNAs that associate with specific RNA-binding proteins. Recent improvements in sequencing and cross-linking techniques have enabled fine mapping of protein binding sites within the transcript. High-throughput sequencing has recently been used together with massively parallel DNA synthesis for detailed analysis of DNA regulatory elements, and similar approaches are likely to be suitable for analyzing 3’ UTR regulatory elements. Site-specific mutations, for example those that affect the termination codon, polyadenylation signal, or secondary structure of the 3’ UTR, can show how mutated regions can cause translation deregulation and disease. These types of transcript-wide methods should help our understanding of known cis elements and trans-regulatory factors on 3’ UTR regulatory elements.

Help us improve the Wikipedia Education Program
Hi Dehringb! As a student editor on Wikipedia, you have a lot of valuable experience about what it's like to edit as a part of a classroom assignment. In order to help other students like you enjoy editing while contributing positively to Wikipedia, it's extremely helpful to hear from real student editors about their challenges, successes, and support needs. Please take a few minutes to answer these questions by clicking below. (Note that the responses are posted to a public wiki page.) Thanks!

Delivered on behalf of User:Sage Ross (WMF), 16:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sharing your valuable experience Sbash71 (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Three prime untranslated region
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Oxybenzone
Can't wait to learn about oxybenzones with you and User:WlfSprtd23 and make this best wiki page out there Sbash71 (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Expecting great things out of this group and looking to have a lot of fun with you two!! User:Dehringb User:Sbash71 --WlfSprtd23 (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

There has been an outstanding controversy over the potential adverse effects of oxybenzone on the human body. Much of the disagreement is between the Environmental Working Group and researchers who claim that that substance in question has an insignificant impact. According to EWG research, 84% of over 900 sunscreen products brands ineffectively protect against harmful rays or contain chemicals like oxybenzone. Not all chemicals are bad and understanding the nature of oxybenzone is important in order to avoid confusion as it is not the same as benzophenone, nor BP-1 through BP-11. Though there is a similar structure, their properties may not all be the same, especially when involving contact with the human body. One study finds an alleged sunscreen chemical in soaps, cosmetics and body fragrances is threatening coral reefs. The study focused on benzophenone-2, a similar compound to oxybenzone and used in nearly 400 different product lines, and its devastating populations of juvenile corals at low concentrations and damaging their DNA, resulting in a potential carcinogen amongst survivors. Although this may be a concerning when it comes to the use of BP-2 in everyday products, further studies with regard to its influence on the health of the community and its exact relation to oxybenzone are necessary. Humans process chemicals and their environment differently than other organisms especially in the case of coral reefs which can die with a slight change in oceanic pH and temperature.

The CDC published in March of 2008 a survey of 2,500 Americans of all ages and found that 97% tested for BP-3 in their urine with higher levels in women than in men, the same chemical whose investigation by the FDA was overdue in the eyes of the EWG when other safe ingredients in other countries have yet to receive recognition. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has also made a statement against the use of cosmetics containing oxybenzone and related compounds, suggesting that it could result in abnormal uterine growth known as endometriosis and to infertility. They also pressed that benzophenone-1 was likely the cause, which is broken down from oxybenzone absorbed in the human body, finding correlations between certain populations who express higher levels of the chemical during the hotter months. . The chair of the Sunscreen Committee, Ahmed Farah, made a statement regarding oxybenzone, saying that is was a safe ingredient and not an endorine disrupting chemical, listing medical organizations in the U.S. and around the world that agree with his assessment. The U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR), the European Union Cosmetic Ingredient Authority, Health Canada, All South East Asian Nations governments, and the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) permit and support the use of oxybenzone, finding no basis to label it an endocrine disruptor      .The Skin Cancer Foundation also noted that oxybenzone could under certain conditions give rise to free radicals that in theory could lead to skin cancer, but that not enough evidence supports that theory amongst other claiming that oxybenzone is also an endocrine disruptor

Genes coding steroidogenesis and hormonal pathways were altered in the zebra fish during their developmental stages in a low concentration BP-3 study in 2012. That same study found that adult zebra fish, unlike embryos, had a similar capacity to metabolize BP-3 to BP-1 as humans. Negative effects on the endocrine system in zebra fish occurred regardless of age, possibly revealing that the transformation of BP-3 in adult zebra fish and humans may not be enough to combat dangerous dosages or that the metabolite BP-1 also has an effect. In any case, it could suppose that children may be more vulnerable and lack the ability to process certain chemicals during development as did the zebra fish embryos. A quote from the FDA recommended avoiding sunscreen with babies :“Babies' skin is less mature compared to adults, and infants have a higher surface-area to body-weight ratio compared to older children and adults....Both these factors mean that an infant's exposure to the chemicals in sunscreens may be much greater, increasing the risk of side effects from the sunscreen.”. Case in point, it is not medically advisable for very young children.

Regardless of whether of not oxybenzone is secretly harmful or perfectly safe to use, it should be made well aware that many people react differently to exposure to certain chemicals. Nonlethal allergic reactions have been recorded in people with sensitive skin, yet most may find there to be no issue with sunscreen and other cosmetics containing the chemical. It is unlikely to find chemicals that are completely hypoallergenic and provide the same coverage.

A New York Times article tried to address the claim against normal use of oxybenzone containing sunscreens for protection against UV-A and UV-B radiation. It recognized two studies, one where rats were fed high doses of oxybenzone and experienced abnormal uterine growth amongst other side effects, and one with humans who did show evidence of absorbing the compound through normal topical use contrary to consuming it, but gave no hints of toxicity. If oxybenzone is indeed safe to use, as many credible orgnizations and scientists have postulated, then it is necessary to address its ability to enhance skin permeation and absorption of other compounds such as concluded in a study of DEET insect repellent when used concurrently with oxybenzone. A skin topical application found that when BP-3 and DEET were absorbed faster when used together, although they were later succesfully metabolized and eliminated from the body. This could be concerning as far as an accumulation effect of these compounds during months when bug spray and sunscreen are used in tandem, achieving higher concentrations than normal. At some point the level of oxybenzone absorbed through the skin could match harmful dosages in rat food comparatively. Further studies are also needed to understand the level at which oxybenzone can accumulate in the body and the rate at which is can be cleansed out.

The SCCP when testing rates with the highest dosage level of BP-3, were unable to detect a mutagenic potential in vivo or in vitro, yet showed reduced food consumption and retarded body weight gain, targeting the liver and kidneys. The researches claimed that this was more likely due to a reversible metabolic response towards the chemical. The researchers also looked at pig skin and only 3-4% BP-3 penetrated the samples in 24 hours and were therefore bioavailable. It is challenging to reconcile these two rat studies by opposing parties, yet it may indicate truth from both angles. Interestingly enough, the EWG receives scrutiny when addressing a study of oxybenzone acting as a carcinogen through free-radical damage in laboratory models of skin, when the SCCP uses pig skin samples instead of human flesh in their own studies. The pig skin samples seemed to have a similar permeability as human flesh over artificial membranes. On the other hand, sunscreens with oxybenzone do have the advantage of protecting against other UV-A and UV-B as opposed to other sunscreens while others only protect against sunburn, not the sun's radiation.

Although many disagree with the EWG bold claims about oxybenzone being hazardous and an endocrine disrupter, these plant and animal models hint at the possibility of health issues when mothers and their offspring are exposed to copious amounts of oxybenzone. In any case, it is up to the discretion of the consumer who buys products containing oxybenzone to weigh both sides. The SCCP confirms that a 1-6% oxybenzone content in products applied topically do not demonstrate a noticeable increases in sensitization potential or toxicity in skin cells, aside from rare possible allergic reactions. In conclusion, more unbiased research is necessary to understand the pros and cons of oxybenzone (BP-3) use in everyday products and clear away conflicting statements. When digesting these arguments, it is important to not that there are other ways of avoiding damage from the sun, and that is through proper summer attire, staying in the shade, and enjoying the sun is not at its fiercest in the middle of the day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WlfSprtd23 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)