Medical Forum / General / General / August 2007
astronauts and common cold
|
|
Thread rating:  |
neo - 15 Aug 2007 09:00 GMT In earth atmosphere many gases are present alongwith oxygen. But I think, in space shuttle or international space station, there is supply of pure oxygen.
I think hydrogen ions in air on earth reacts with chloride ions in nasal airway resulting in sneezing and common cold.
As there is no hydrogen in space station, astronauts should not catch common cold.
If there is no case, you can always say that there are no common cold virus in space hence astronauts do not catch common cold.
So tell them to carry so called common cold viruses in space. They will not catch common cold.
Because common cold is not viral infection.
James R. Jones - 15 Aug 2007 13:06 GMT > In earth atmosphere many gases are present alongwith oxygen. But I > think, in space shuttle or international space station, there is [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Because common cold is not viral infection. Hmmm you seem to forget the Wally Shirra that had a cold while on one of the Apollo missions. If you hydrogen and chlorine theory held true I would have had a cold continuously for several years as I worked around HCL(Hydrochloric Acid) daily. The medical profession say it is a virus that causes a cold, I think I will go along with their opinion rather than this half cooked scheme.
 Signature Our website is http://myweb.cableone.net/okieman7
neo - 15 Aug 2007 18:36 GMT > > In earth atmosphere many gases are present alongwith oxygen. But I > > think, in space shuttle or international space station, there is [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > that causes a cold, I think I will go along with their opinion rather > than this half cooked scheme. Isn't it surprising that evolution spanning millions of years failed to develope immune system in human body to protect from common cold viruses?
As I am typing this, it just occured to me whether our ancestors, monkeys and chimpanzy catch common cold. They must because almost all DNA of human matches with chimpanzy.
I am going to google.
Mike Combs - 15 Aug 2007 18:58 GMT > Isn't it surprising that evolution spanning millions of years failed > to develope immune system in human body to protect from common cold > viruses? Not really. How often do humans die from the common cold? How many have been rendered unable to reproduce by the common cold?
Remember, evolution only works on issues related to reproduction, or issues of survival only in as much as they directly impact reproduction.
Evolution has no mechanism for providing what an individual might want or desire.
 Signature Regards, Mike Combs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- By all that you hold dear on this good Earth I bid you stand, Men of the West! Aragorn
bae@cs.toronto.no-uce.edu - 15 Aug 2007 19:25 GMT >Isn't it surprising that evolution spanning millions of years failed >to develope immune system in human body to protect from common cold >viruses? Not at all. Our immune system copes with the hundreds of viruses that can cause the common cold quite well. The common cold is a trivial and transient disease, and unlikely to affect the number of offspring a person has, which is all evolution is "interested in".
Note that until recently most humans lived in small scattered groups, so probably never contacted more than a few different strains of cold viruses in a lifetime. Even after agriculture became widespread a few thousand years ago, most people traveled very little, so still didn't have exposure to very many different strains in their whole lives.
Even now, with massive worldwide travel, most adults have been exposed to and developed immunity to so many cold viruses by the time they reach 30 or so that they seldom have more than one cold per year, if that. So the immune system copes well not only under the conditions it developed under, but under orders of magnitude greater load. Sounds good to me.
neo - 15 Aug 2007 19:32 GMT > > > In earth atmosphere many gases are present alongwith oxygen. But I > > > think, in space shuttle or international space station, there is [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > I am going to google. So chimpanzee develope complete immunity to common cold viruses by age of 2 and even in young chimpanzee symtoms disappear quickly.
http://www.releasechimps.org/harm-suffering/research-current/infectious-diseases /use-of-chimpanzees-to-study-respiratory-syncytial-virus-rsv/
. So humans have also immunity to such viruses. It is our modern day food, salt responsible for common cold.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med/browse_thread/thread/5d9b136f0a16ff92
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med/browse_thread/thread/74ce616209771006
. Don't you people have ability to think that scientists are looking in completely different direction? Why it is difficult to find cure on common cold but easy to send man on moon?
neo - 15 Aug 2007 19:32 GMT > > > In earth atmosphere many gases are present alongwith oxygen. But I > > > think, in space shuttle or international space station, there is [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > I am going to google. So chimpanzee develope complete immunity to common cold viruses by age of 2 and even in young chimpanzee symtoms disappear quickly.
http://www.releasechimps.org/harm-suffering/research-current/infectious-diseases /use-of-chimpanzees-to-study-respiratory-syncytial-virus-rsv/
. So humans have also immunity to such viruses. It is our modern day food, salt responsible for common cold.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med/browse_thread/thread/5d9b136f0a16ff92
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med/browse_thread/thread/74ce616209771006
. Don't you people have ability to think that scientists are looking in completely different direction? Why it is difficult to find cure on common cold but easy to send man on moon?
Joe Strout - 15 Aug 2007 21:08 GMT > Isn't it surprising that evolution spanning millions of years failed > to develope immune system in human body to protect from common cold > viruses? It would be, if the viruses were not also evolving to get around our protections.
 Signature "Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work. Learn more and discuss via: <http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/>
Paul F. Dietz - 16 Aug 2007 02:43 GMT > Isn't it surprising that evolution spanning millions of years failed > to develope immune system in human body to protect from common cold > viruses? No, because the viruses are also evolving (and they reproduce a lot faster than we do). It's an arms race.
Why are you surprised about the common cold, btw, and not all other viral infections? Your reasoning would apply to them as well.
Paul
Bob - 16 Aug 2007 04:01 GMT >Isn't it surprising that evolution spanning millions of years failed >to develope immune system in human body to protect from common cold >viruses? As I understand it, our immune system does rather well against the cold viruses. We get a cold, with only minor consequneces, and are immune to that virus for a lifetime. The problem is that there are a couple hundred other viruses out there to infect us.
bob
Joe Strout - 15 Aug 2007 15:29 GMT > In earth atmosphere many gases are present alongwith oxygen. But I > think, in space shuttle or international space station, there is > supply of pure oxygen. You're wrong.
> I think hydrogen ions in air on earth reacts with chloride ions in > nasal airway resulting in sneezing and common cold. I think you're a nut (not to put too fine a point on it).
 Signature "Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work. Learn more and discuss via: <http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/>
neo - 15 Aug 2007 19:41 GMT > > In earth atmosphere many gases are present alongwith oxygen. But I > > think, in space shuttle or international space station, there is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I think you're a nut (not to put too fine a point on it). Calling nut does not work in science. We go by logic, observation and experimental proof.
Hydrogen reacts voilently with chlorine in light. When we get feeling of sneezing we directly look at sun.
Why do we sneez voilently when we look at sun?
Science, not flaming.
Rand Simberg - 15 Aug 2007 19:57 GMT On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:41:34 -0000, in a place far, far away, neo <abhijeet@operamail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>> > I think hydrogen ions in air on earth reacts with chloride ions in >> > nasal airway resulting in sneezing and common cold. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Hydrogen reacts voilently with chlorine in light. >When we get feeling of sneezing we directly look at sun. No, we don't.
>Why do we sneez voilently when we look at sun? "We" don't.
>Science, not flaming. No, nuttiness, not science.
Rick Jones - 15 Aug 2007 21:15 GMT > >Why do we sneez voilently when we look at sun? > "We" don't. Indeed, although some of "us" do :) Those with, IIRC a recessive gene which is involved somehow in the link between stepping into/looking towards bright light and sneezing.
rick jones
 Signature oxymoron n, commuter in a gas-guzzling luxury SUV with an American flag these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :) feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...
Joe Strout - 15 Aug 2007 21:17 GMT > >Why do we sneez voilently when we look at sun? > > "We" don't. I do (well, I don't sneeze violently, but I do feel the urge). But photic sneezing has nothing to do with the rest of the nuttiness that "neo" has been spouting.
 Signature "Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work. Learn more and discuss via: <http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/>
Rand Simberg - 15 Aug 2007 21:51 GMT On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:17:38 -0600, in a place far, far away, Joe Strout <joe@strout.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>> >Why do we sneez voilently when we look at sun? >> >> "We" don't. > >I do (well, I don't sneeze violently, but I do feel the urge). But I'll bet you sneez voilently. C'mon, admit it...
Anyway, "we" don't. I certainly never have.
>But photic sneezing has nothing to do with the rest of the nuttiness that >"neo" has been spouting. Agreed.
Jonathan - 16 Aug 2007 01:30 GMT > > >Why do we sneez voilently when we look at sun? > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > photic sneezing has nothing to do with the rest of the nuttiness that > "neo" has been spouting. What amazes me about sneezing is if done in public someone will...always say God Bless You. I mean every single time without exception. And I bet no one really knows why including me. It's as if we're born with the habit.
I find that just astonishing.
So I looked it up and supposedly some of these stories account for the habit. Stories such as......
"In the Netherlands a person who sneezes is believed thereby to place himself in the power of a witch, unless some one invokes a divine blessing; and such notions afford a plausible explanation of one theory of the origin of this custom."
So, too, in Ireland the sneezer is greeted with fervent benedictions, such as, "The blessing of God and the holy Mary be upon you!" for such invocations are thought to counteract the machinations of evil-disposed fairies.
According to a well-known myth of classical antiquity, Prometheus formed of clay the model of a man, and desiring to animate the lifeless figure, was borne to heaven by the Goddess Minerva, where he filled a reed with celestial fire stolen from a wheel of the Sun's chariot. Returning then to earth, he applied the magical reed to the nostrils of the image, which thereupon became a living man, and began its existence by sneezing. Prometheus, delighted with his success, uttered a fervent wish for the welfare of his newly formed creature
The Portuguese traveler, Godinho, wrote that whenever the emperor of Monomotapa sneezed, acclamations were universal throughout his realm; and in Guinea in the last century, whenever a person of rank sneezed, every one present knelt down, clapped their hands, and wished him every blessing. The courtiers of the king of Sennaar in Nubia are wont on the occasion of a royal sneeze to turn their backs on their sovereign while vigorously slapping the right hip. Among the Zulu tribes, sneezing is viewed as a favorable symptom in a sick person, and the natives are accustomed to return thanks after it. In Madagascar, when a child sneezes, its mother invokes the divine blessing, conformably to European usage; and in Persia the sneezer is the recipient of congratulations and good wishes.
The Italian historian, Carlo Sigonio, voices this belief in his statement that the practice began in the sixth century, during the pontificate of Gregory the Great. At this period a virulent pestilence raged in Italy, which proved fatal to those who sneezed. The Pope, therefore, ordered prayers to be said against it, accompanied by certain signs of the cross. And the people were wont also to say to those who sneezed, "God help ye!" a revival of a custom dating back to prehistoric times."
http://www.sacred-texts.com/etc/mhs/mhs47.htm
Joe Strout - 15 Aug 2007 21:11 GMT > > > In earth atmosphere many gases are present alongwith oxygen. But I > > > think, in space shuttle or international space station, there is [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Calling nut does not work in science. We go by logic, observation and > experimental proof. Scientists do, but I think you're misusing the word "we" here.
> Why do we sneez voilently when we look at sun? I assume you mean "sneeze," and this is the photic sneeze reflex. Try a Google search; it's been pretty well studied by real scientists.
 Signature "Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work. Learn more and discuss via: <http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/>
Pat Flannery - 16 Aug 2007 02:21 GMT >> Calling nut does not work in science. We go by logic, observation and >> experimental proof. >> > > Scientists do, but I think you're misusing the word "we" here. > All your colds are belong to us. :-)
Pat
Henry Spencer - 15 Aug 2007 15:33 GMT >In earth atmosphere many gases are present alongwith oxygen. But I >think, in space shuttle or international space station, there is >supply of pure oxygen. Uh, no, both the shuttle and the station use approximately the same atmosphere as here on Earth: 21% oxygen, almost all the rest nitrogen, at circa 14.7psi. Only the spacesuits use pure oxygen now.
Some of the trace ingredients are different, e.g. there is not much argon (nearly 1% of Earth air) in the station air.
>I think hydrogen ions in air on earth reacts with chloride ions in >nasal airway resulting in sneezing and common cold. The amount of free hydrogen in Earth's atmosphere is tiny -- about half a part per million -- and it comes from the breakup of water vapor by various means. There is just as much water vapor in the shuttle and station air as in Earth's air.
>As there is no hydrogen in space station, astronauts should not catch >common cold. Minor infections, including colds, actually appear to be more common in space than on the ground. Weightlessness causes changes in the immune system -- just how that happens is unknown -- and that may be part of it, and more small airborne debris (since it doesn't settle due to gravity) may also be a factor.
>Because common cold is not viral infection. And what price are you asking for the Brooklyn Bridge?
 Signature spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@spsystems.net
Mike Combs - 15 Aug 2007 18:30 GMT > Uh, no, both the shuttle and the station use approximately the same > atmosphere as here on Earth: 21% oxygen, almost all the rest nitrogen, at > circa 14.7psi. Only the spacesuits use pure oxygen now. Do you happen to know what Mir used to use? I tried to look this up once and couldn't find anything on the subject.
I know that Skylab had an atmosphere with reduced pressure and enhanced O2 percentage. I was wondering if that was our only experience in such atmospheres.
 Signature Regards, Mike Combs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- By all that you hold dear on this good Earth I bid you stand, Men of the West! Aragorn
Brian Lawrence - 16 Aug 2007 00:27 GMT > Do you happen to know what Mir used to use? I tried to look this up once and > couldn't find anything on the subject. Mir and previous Soviet/Russian manned craft also used an oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere. If Mir had been different to the normal space shuttle atmosphere the Shuttle-Mir missions would have needed an airlock system similar to the Apollo-Soyuz Docking Module. The Progress craft resupplied Mir with both O2 & N2 and when docked Mir took onboard excess O2 & N2 from the shuttle.
Not sure about pressure.
 Signature Brian
Henry Spencer - 16 Aug 2007 02:50 GMT >> Uh, no, both the shuttle and the station use approximately the same >> atmosphere as here on Earth: 21% oxygen, almost all the rest nitrogen, at >> circa 14.7psi. Only the spacesuits use pure oxygen now. > >Do you happen to know what Mir used to use? I tried to look this up once >and couldn't find anything on the subject. The Soviets/Russians used Earth-surface air composition and pressure from the start. (Again, with the exception of spacesuits.)
>I know that Skylab had an atmosphere with reduced pressure and enhanced O2 >percentage. I was wondering if that was our only experience in such >atmospheres. I think it's the only actually-flown vehicle that used such a mix as its normal operating atmosphere.
The shuttle sometimes runs at *somewhat* lower pressure and *somewhat* higher oxygen content when a spacewalk is imminent, to reduce the amount of prebreathing needed, but that is considered an abnormal case.
And the post-fire Apollo capsule, while on the ground, used an oxygen-rich but not pure-oxygen atmosphere at 14.7psi in the cabin, to limit fire hazards while avoiding other problems. (The crew, in their suits, was still breathing pure oxygen, and the cabin bled down to low-pressure pure oxygen during ascent.)
Otherwise, it's all been 14.7psi of roughly-normal air, or 5psi of pure oxygen.
 Signature spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@spsystems.net
Mike Combs - 16 Aug 2007 18:21 GMT > I think it's the only actually-flown vehicle that used such a mix as its > normal operating atmosphere. Thanks for the info.
 Signature Regards, Mike Combs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- By all that you hold dear on this good Earth I bid you stand, Men of the West! Aragorn
Chris Jones - 16 Aug 2007 20:43 GMT > In article <f9vd8b$73l$1@home.itg.ti.com>, [...]
> The shuttle sometimes runs at *somewhat* lower pressure and *somewhat* > higher oxygen content when a spacewalk is imminent, to reduce the amount > of prebreathing needed, but that is considered an abnormal case. As does the US ISS airlock, for the same reason. This is why you'll hear about crewmembers with an upcoming EVA "camping-out" in the airlock.
I believe this camping out is not necessary for EVAs in Russian suits, as they run at a higher pressure than US suits (still with pure oxygen as the breathing gas), which removes the need for a lengthy pre-breathing cycle at the cost of a stiffer suit, somewhat harder to use.
Fred J. McCall - 17 Aug 2007 02:49 GMT :I believe this camping out is not necessary for EVAs in Russian suits, :as they run at a higher pressure than US suits (still with pure oxygen :as the breathing gas), which removes the need for a lengthy :pre-breathing cycle at the cost of a stiffer suit, somewhat harder to :use. I'm curious how much higher they go, since pure oxygen at higher pressures is not particularly healthy for you.
 Signature "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden
Chris Jones - 17 Aug 2007 18:59 GMT > :I believe this camping out is not necessary for EVAs in Russian suits, > :as they run at a higher pressure than US suits (still with pure oxygen [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I'm curious how much higher they go, since pure oxygen at higher > pressures is not particularly healthy for you. 392 hPa, about 5.69 psi. Above the sea-level partial pressure of O2, but still safe.
Rick Jones - 15 Aug 2007 18:48 GMT In sci.space.history Henry Spencer <henry@spsystems.net> wrote:
> Uh, no, both the shuttle and the station use approximately the same > atmosphere as here on Earth: 21% oxygen, almost all the rest > nitrogen, at circa 14.7psi. Only the spacesuits use pure oxygen > now. Do they actually carry nitrogen replenishment tanks on the Shuttle? Or is it "tight enough" that it isn't necessary?
rick jones
 Signature portable adj, code that compiles under more than one compiler these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :) feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...
Jeff Findley - 15 Aug 2007 19:32 GMT > In sci.space.history Henry Spencer <henry@spsystems.net> wrote: >> Uh, no, both the shuttle and the station use approximately the same [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Do they actually carry nitrogen replenishment tanks on the Shuttle? > Or is it "tight enough" that it isn't necessary? Shuttle and ISS both have N2 tanks. The shuttle leaks a bit while in orbit, plus every time you open the airlock, you lose some O2 and N2.
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts_eclss.html#sts_eclss
Search for "nitrogen" on the above page.
Jeff
 Signature "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)
Henry Spencer - 16 Aug 2007 02:55 GMT >Do they actually carry nitrogen replenishment tanks on the Shuttle? >Or is it "tight enough" that it isn't necessary? Yes, the orbiter does have nitrogen tanks. It's not particularly "tight"; in fact, US spacecraft designers in general have not tried hard to control leakage (as witness considerable variation in leak rates between different vehicles of the same design), so they have generally had relatively high leak rates and have relied on having plenty of replenishment gas.
("Tight" vehicles *can* be built -- Skylab's Multiple Docking Adapter had a leak rate orders of magnitude lower than the Apollo spacecraft, despite being rather larger -- but first the engineers must care.)
 Signature spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@spsystems.net
Chris Jones - 16 Aug 2007 20:45 GMT [...]
> ("Tight" vehicles *can* be built -- Skylab's Multiple Docking Adapter had > a leak rate orders of magnitude lower than the Apollo spacecraft, despite > being rather larger -- but first the engineers must care.) Note that Soviet/Russian spacecraft are much tighter; leakage is practically non-existent under normal circumstances. This was always the case, though they became practically fanatical about it after Soyuz 11.
Pat Flannery - 17 Aug 2007 01:19 GMT > Note that Soviet/Russian spacecraft are much tighter; leakage is > practically non-existent under normal circumstances. This was always > the case, though they became practically fanatical about it after Soyuz > 11. > Back during Voskhod they had no choice; there wasn't enough extra air aboard to repressurize the spacecraft if it sprung a leak. Three guys without pressure suits in a spacecraft that cannot be allowed to leak is not a safe idea, and that was one of the arguments against continuing the Voskhod program. That's also why the airlock on Voskhod 2 had gas storage stanks mounted on its exterior - it pressurized itself before Leonov crawled into it from the cabin, and did it again after he had returned to it out from his EVA and sealed the external hatch before opening the hatch into the capsule's interior. A lot of their concern with leak-proof spacecraft probably comes from the cooling systems for their tube-driven electronics that tended to stow them in pressurized containers with fans that circulated the gas for cooling by forced convection. Failures of pressurization in the electronic cooling containers probably accounted for some early Soviet planetary probes going silent a few weeks after launch.
Launch
Chris Jones - 17 Aug 2007 19:14 GMT > > Note that Soviet/Russian spacecraft are much tighter; leakage is > > practically non-existent under normal circumstances. This was always [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > pressurized containers with fans that circulated the gas for cooling by forced > convection. One of the stories circulated about Voskhod 2 is that it actually did have a leak after the airlock was jettisoned, and the attempts to keep the pressure up led to an O2 rich cabin environment, which caused some concern about the potential for electronic arcing causing a fire.
robert casey - 17 Aug 2007 01:09 GMT > Yes, the orbiter does have nitrogen tanks. It's not particularly "tight"; > in fact, US spacecraft designers in general have not tried hard to control > leakage (as witness considerable variation in leak rates between different > vehicles of the same design), so they have generally had relatively high > leak rates and have relied on having plenty of replenishment gas. Maybe a reason to allow such leakage was to reduce the amount of traces from electronic circuit boards and other such equipment outgasses. Stuff that the filter systems aboard the craft may not be able to deal with. Also if baked beans are on the menu... :D
Pat Flannery - 17 Aug 2007 19:38 GMT > Maybe a reason to allow such leakage was to reduce the amount of > traces from electronic circuit boards and other such equipment > outgasses. Stuff that the filter systems aboard the craft may not be > able to deal with. Also if baked beans are on the menu... :D I was amazed to find that one of the NASA ISS dinners was pizza, which sounds like trouble in that regard. The Russian space menu seems awfully bland, a lot of berries and nuts combined with some meat and black bread, but it does sound like something a bear would eat. :-)
Pat
Jeff Findley - 15 Aug 2007 16:36 GMT > In earth atmosphere many gases are present alongwith oxygen. But I > think, in space shuttle or international space station, there is > supply of pure oxygen. Actually, on the shuttle, the "air supply" is O2 and N2 at sea level mix and pressure. CO2 scrubbers keep CO2, generated by the astronauts, at low levels. As far as I know, the same is true for ISS and Soyuz.
Jeff
 Signature "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)
Scott Hedrick - 15 Aug 2007 17:20 GMT > As there is no hydrogen in space station, astronauts should not catch > common cold. There is hydrogen in the space station, though not as much as in older spacecraft. People fart, and since the total volume of air in ISS is less than Earth, the portion of hydrogen is greater. In older spacecraft it was worse, because the lower pressure encouraged more farting. The fuel cells also sometimes added hydrogen to the water.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation - 15 Aug 2007 17:41 GMT > In earth atmosphere many gases are present alongwith oxygen. But I > think, in space shuttle or international space station, there is [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Because common cold is not viral infection. Here is some information on the current tests being done on STS-118 examining the how bacteria grow in space which "will give insight on what types of bacterial infections may occur during long duration space missions"
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/182728main_STS-118_Press_Kit.pdf STS-118 press kit Page 69 Biological Science Investigations "Streptococcus pneumoniae Gene Expression and Virulence Potential in the Space Environment (SPEGIS) will examine the behavior and growth of bacteria in microgravity. The data collected will give insight on what types of bacterial infections may occur during long duration space missions and the risks to crew members."
The Experiments Link http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/science/experiments/SPEGIS.html#description "Streptococcus pneumoniae Expression of Genes in Space (SPEGIS) 08.14.2007 Brief Summary Streptococcus pneumoniae Expression of Gene in Space (SPEGIS) will examine the behavior and growth of bacteria in microgravity and investigate the effects of the space environment on the gene expression, protein production, and virulence of the bacteria Streptococcus pneumoniae. The data collected will also provide insight on what types of bacterial infections may occur during long-duration space missions and the risks to crew members.... Experiment/Payload Description Research Summary During spaceflight, as well as on Earth, humans risk infection that is caused by bacteria. This investigation will examine gene and protein expression of Streptococcus pneumoniae (a bacteria that is normally found living in the human body) are effected by microgravity. Data from SPEGIS is anticipated to provide information on the threat of opportunistic pathogens in the space environment, which will assist in the development of diagnostic tools to monitor the atmosphere and surfaces (air, soil, and food) for the presence of these microbes. Description The Streptococcus pneumoniae Expression of Genes in Space (SPEGIS) will investigate S. pneumoniae gene expression and protein production in the space environment. S. pneumoniae is an important human pathogen and the leading cause of bacterial pneumonia (inflammation of the lungs with congestion), meningitis (inflammation of the membrane covering the brain and spinal cord), and otitis media (ear infection). Importantly, this pathogen has been isolated previously from the crew pre-flight and related bacteria are found in the spacecraft environment. Experiments will be performed to identify and characterize S. pneumoniae genes and proteins, which are differentially expressed in response to the space environment and compare microgravity-induced genes and proteins to those expressed during post-flight animal infection.
This experimental approach will result in new information about a significant human pathogen, add to our knowledge about the S. pneumoniae pathogenic mechanism, and also provide basic information on the bacterial model system of gene and protein expression in the space environment.
S. pneumoniae is a respiratory microbe that is normally found in the upper respiratory tract of approximately 40% of the healthy human population. The identification of specific S. pneumoniae virulence factors and cellular and molecular processes may aid scientists in furthering the understanding of how this bacteria causes infection. This data may aid in the design and development of new antimicrobial drugs.
Pre-flight the S. pneumoniae cultures will be grown on the ground in a laboratory environment and inoculated into Todd Hewitt Yeast extract (THY) growth medium for the flight experiment. The bacterial cultures will be loaded into the experiment containers approximately L-72 hours and will be launched at 4 degrees C in the Microgravity Environment Research Locker/INcubator (MERLIN)."
|
|
|