WTF Is PPARΨ?

Travis

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2016
Messages
3,189
WTF is PPARΨ?

As you all know, there's a class of prostaglandin receptors called PPARs, an acronym for peroxisome proliferator activator receptors. These things help to create peroxisomes—organelles which metabolize fat. It's not unusual to see these nuclear receptors transcribe mRNA for enzymes such as fatty acid β-oxidase and fatty acid synthase.

I came across this:

"PPARΨ is considered to be one of the key actors of the adipocyte differentiation process and its natural ligand 15- deoxy-Δ 12,1 4 prostaglandin J₂ is a potent adipogenesis inducer."

Hmm . . . the same ligand as PPARγ. Also, when searching for PPARΨ you get results such as:

"Anti-inflammatory effects of peroxysome proliferator activated receptor gamma (PPARψ) in Ccl4-induced hepatitis."

This has no Wikipedia page; the GoogleScholar results aren't much better:

"a specific biomarker for in vivo activation of peroxisome proliferator-activator receptor gamma (PPARψ) activity"

ψ ≠ γ

Looking back on the original article, it appears as though the authors (or editors) made a switch from the lowercase gamma (γ) in the abstract, to the uppercase phi (ψ) in the body. Quite strange. Even more confusing is that two articles denote it as PPARΨ (psi) while spelling it out as PPAR-gamma—in the very same sentence.

Could this be a problem with one computer program? one editor? Perhaps a compound error created by people citing others? (These three excerpts were printed in different journals.)

If anyone knows why PPAR-gamma should be denoted as PPARΨ I would sure like to know. Any real data on this apparent unicorn would be appreciated.

Try searching for "PPAR-psi:" You will get nothing.

This appears either to be a very obscure historical convention, an HTML bug, or a few scientists confused over Greek letters.

WTF is PPARΨ?

[1] Billoni, Nelly, et al. "Expression of Peroxisome Proliferator Activated Receptors (PPARs) in Human Hair Follicles and PPARa Involvement in Hair Growth." Acta Derm Venereol (2000)
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
7,370
Sometimes OCR scans or just pdf to text conversion can do this. Or maybe modern researchers don’t know the Greek alphabet anymore :cool
 

noordinary

Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2016
Messages
209
I used LaTex back in postgrad school but for math papers. All of these greek letters would be different in LaTex: /Psi vs /psi vs /gamma
i don't think there was a bug in compilation
Agree with @Such_Saturation Looks like that was a bug in whatever software was used when older papers were scanned, that would explain why spelling differs from the greet symbol used.
Besides older journal editors used to be sooo strict about every little thing, it was impossible to pass any paper with the "comma" in the wrong place not even talking about greek letters (at least in mathematics)
 
OP
Travis

Travis

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2016
Messages
3,189
I used LaTex back in postgrad school but for math papers. All of these greek letters would be different in LaTex: /Psi vs /psi vs /gamma
i don't think there was a bug in compilation
Agree with @Such_Saturation Looks like that was a bug in whatever software was used when older papers were scanned, that would explain why spelling differs from the greet symbol used.
Besides older journal editors used to be sooo strict about every little thing, it was impossible to pass any paper with the "comma" in the wrong place not even talking about greek letters (at least in mathematics)
I would hope so, but aren't .pdf files basically just photocopies of the original? I had thought so. . . although I'm sure there's quite a bit about Adobe® that I don't know about.

But I'm fairly certain what causes myopia, if you're still looking for explanations on that?
 
Last edited:

noordinary

Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2016
Messages
209
OP
Travis

Travis

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2016
Messages
3,189
Hi @Travis, I am interested. Care to share? I am sure @Such_Saturation will enjoy your explanation as well...
Okay. I need to get some coffee first, and then will lay my case down. Some of the other explanations kinda make sense, but then kinda unravel when you think too hard about them—you know what I'm talking about. Once you find the right explanation, you know it immediately. The right explanation leaves nothing unexplained, and has no paradox.
 
L

lollipop

Guest
Once you find the right explanation, you know it immediately. The right explanation leaves nothing unexplained, and has no paradox.
Deep breath at this wisdom. Truth. I never put words to the experience - you just did.

Question? I want to use this quote in my newsletter and want to give you credit. I can do it with initials if you prefer. Which name do I use? Also you can PM me if you prefer...

Sweet on the reflection and frankly no rush here, your creativity is most important.
 
OP
Travis

Travis

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2016
Messages
3,189
[This would be a good time to introduce my cloud (☁) punctuation—to indicate a thought.]

Let me analyze the genesis, and the predecessors, for the quote.. . .☁(Why had I typed such a thing? This certainly can't be a totally novel quo―)☁

Terence Mckenna had said once, during a lecture: "Who was it that once said 'A paradox is what you have left over after applying a bad theory'?" I had searched for this quote-inside-a-quote a few months ago, to find who McKenna was referring to, and found nothing. I had even searched for it again a few months later with null results. I could not even find anything close to what Terrence had said. I think this perhaps could actually be a Terrence McKenna invention: one he had just made-up, yet had attributed it to an imaginary person as a rhetorical technique—imbibing it with consequence by telling the audience that a notable person, never identified, had said such.

Add to that one this one here, by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: "It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

Mixing those two quotes together over a coffee and a cigarette, you get—obviously—this one here: "The right explanation leaves nothing unexplained, and has no paradox."after some serious pruning, of course.

So it could be attributed to 'Conan McKenna,' 'Terrence Doyle,' tobacco, coffee, or perhaps
even to 'Travis S'.
[But I still can't help but imagine this having come from Max Born for some reason.. . .]
 
Last edited:
L

lollipop

Guest
[This would be a good time to introduce my cloud (☁) punctuation—to indicate a thought.]

Let me analyze the genesis, and the predecessors, for the quote.. . .☁(Why had I typed such a thing? This certainly can't be a totally novel quo―)☁

Terence Mckenna had said once, during a lecture: "Who was it that once said 'A paradox is what you have left over after applying a bad theory'?" I had searched for this quote-inside-a-quote a few months ago, to find who McKenna was referring to, and found nothing. I had even searched for it again a few months later with null results. I could not even find anything close to what Terrence had said. I think this perhaps could actually be a Terrence McKenna invention: one he had just made-up, yet had attributed it to an imaginary person as a rhetorical technique—imbibing it with consequence by telling the audience that a notable person, never identified, had said such.

Add to that one this one here, by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: "It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

Mixing those two quotes together over a coffee and a cigarette, you get—obviously—this one here: "The right explanation leaves nothing unexplained, and has no paradox."after some serious pruning, of course.

So it could be attributed to 'Conan McKenna,' 'Terrence Doyle,' tobacco, coffee, or perhaps
even to 'Travis S'.
[But I still can't help but imagine this having come from Max Born for some reason.. . .]
:): Travis S. it is. Look at those penetrating eyes of Max Born in that photo. They seriously see right through you...
 
OP
Travis

Travis

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2016
Messages
3,189
@Travis your autism is so beautiful it makes angels cry
@Lisa what newsletter
Autism is caused primarily by β-casein or gluten exorphins. I don't consume dairy or wheat. You're going to have to either rescind that attribution, or come-up with a more fitting definition of autism.
 
Joined
Dec 25, 2014
Messages
1,045
A monthly blog I write.

link?

Autism is caused primarily by β-casein, gluten exorphins, food allergies, or vaccine allergies. I don't consume dairy, wheat, or any other allergenic proteins. You're going to have to either rescind that attribution, or come-up with a more fitting definition of autism.

giphy.gif


I don't mean it as an insult. Were you never vaccinated?
 
OP
Travis

Travis

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2016
Messages
3,189
Well, there's that food allergy thing as well.. . .

The problem with "autism," as such, is that it has no formal biochemical definition. In this way it's like 'schizophrenia,' where they lump a behavior into a category based partially on the whims of the diagnostician. This dilutes epidemiological correlations and can never lead to an answer—but perhaps this is the point?

Like true Alzheimer's should be based on neurofibrillary tangles, as it originally had been, then all other conditions should be defined biochemically. There will never be any progress without this. It makes little sense to have a Serotonin Theory of Schizophrenia, a Glutamate Theory of Schizophrenia, and an Adrenochrome Theory of Schizophrenia when these correlations are never strong and found in ever case. It would be better to have biochemical labels such as adreneochrome‐induced psychosis or subclinical serotonin‐syndrome. Since it's not helpful to have a condition which is the result of two fundamentally non‐related biochemical processes, I think we have to choose one—and only one—biochemical parameter to define every condition. I think that "Autism" is best understood under a neuro‐opiate paradigm; and there is convincing evidence of this based‐on high‐pressure liquid chromatographic determinations of cerebrospinal fluid.
 

noordinary

Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2016
Messages
209
@Travis have you created a separate tread for your myopia findings? Did I miss something?
 
Joined
Dec 25, 2014
Messages
1,045
Well, there's that food allergy thing as well.. . .

The problem with "autism," as such, is that it has no formal biochemical definition. In this way it's like 'schizophrenia,' where they lump a behavior into a category based partially on the whims of the diagnostician. This dilutes epidemiological correlations and can never lead to an answer—but perhaps this is the point?

It's absolutely the point. The fuzzier the diagnostics the more "patients" you can diagnose. The more patients you can cram into a single easilly druggable category.

Like true Alzheimer's should be based on neurofibrillary tangles, as it originally had been, then all other conditions should be defined biochemically. There will never be any progress without this.

I agree. It's insane when you think about it.

It makes little sense to have a Serotonin Theory of Schizophrenia, a Glutamate Theory of Schizophrenia, and an Adrenochrome Theory of Schizophrenia when these correlations are never strong and found in ever case. It would be better to have biochemical labels such as adreneochrome‐induced psychosis or subclinical serotonin‐syndrome.
How about keep the entrenched name schizophrenia but give it subtypes.

Adreneochrome‐Induced Schizophrenia,
Glutamate-Induced Schizophrenia,
Subclinical Serotonin Schizophrenia, etc


AIS, GIS, SSS. It would be easier to adapt to and cleaner. The problem would be making people understand that, biochemically speaking, these are completely different conditions and that the meds or treatment for one would not work for another.
 
OP
Travis

Travis

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2016
Messages
3,189
@Travis have you created a separate tread for your myopia findings? Did I miss something?
Not yet, but I certainly will.
It's absolutely the point. The fuzzier the diagnostics the more "patients" you can diagnose. The more patients you can cram into a single easilly druggable category.
Absolutely. And if everything was defined biochemically, like it should be, most clinical psychologists would be out of a job. For this reason, you'd expect them to continue excluding biochemical terms from the DSM..
How about keep the entrenched name schizophrenia but give it subtypes.

Adreneochrome‐Induced Schizophrenia,
Glutamate-Induced Schizophrenia,
Subclinical Serotonin Schizophrenia, etc
Sure. I think we should be happy with any term having a molecule in the title. Maybe then it would be acknowledged that serotonin actually causes more of an 'effective disorder,' or can modulate behaviors of nearly any type. I think by having a good look around this forum we can get a descent idea of how serotonin works. I would imagine that schizophrenia as commonly understood has more to do with glutamate or adrenochrome than serotonin, although I don't really have an strong opinion on the matter. I need to look into the glutamate hypothesis pretty soon as this could give insight into DNA 'methylation.' I did read some of Hoffer & Osmonds book on adrenochrome and thought that was interesting. But what's certain is that schizophrenia and neuropsychology are so poorly understood and weakly characterized that there are over six competing theories on schizophrenia. I think it would be entertaining to list them all. I could perhaps find a few of them:

Hoffer, A. "The Adrenochrome Theory of Schizophrenia: a Review." Diseases of the nervous system (1964)
Javitt, Daniel C. "Glutamatergic theories of schizophrenia." The Israel journal of psychiatry and related sciences (2010)
Smith, R. S. "A comprehensive macrophage-T-lymphocyte theory of schizophrenia." Medical hypotheses (1992)
Bleich, A.. "A serotonergic theory of schizophrenia." The Role of Serotonin in Psychiatric Disorders (1991)
Meltzer, Herbert Y."The dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia: a review." Schizophrenia bulletin (1976)
Regland, B. "Homocysteinemia and schizophrenia as a case of methylation deficiency." Journal of Neural Transmission (1994)​

These look like the big ones. There has been implicated serotonin, glutamate, adrenochrome, dopamine, methyl groups, and T‐cells. It appears as if trees have been killed printing theories implicating every single major neurotransmitter besides acetylcholine (which is surprising since schizophrenics are commonly found to smoke at higher rates.)

A few minor ones follow:

Buscaino, G. A. "The amino-hepato-entero-toxic theory of schizophrenia: an historical evaluation." The Biological Basis of Schizophrenia. (1978)
Gottesman, Irving I. "A polygenic theory of schizophrenia." International Journal of Mental Health (1972)
Brown, James S. "Effects of bisphenol-A and other endocrine disruptors compared with abnormalities of schizophrenia: an endocrine-disruption theory of schizophrenia." Schizophrenia bulletin (2008)
Kallmann, Franz J. "The genetic theory of schizophrenia: An analysis of 691 schizophrenic twin index families." American Journal of Psychiatry (1946)
And there are even a few more quaint, historical ones proposing behavioural, psychological, and sociological definitions:

Devereux, George. "A sociological theory of schizophrenia." The Psychoanalytic Review (1939)
Bellak, Leopold. "A multiple-factor psychosomatic theory of schizophrenia." Psychiatric Quarterly (1949)
I think perhaps they need to find the biochemical definition most suitable, and exclude all others. That way, schizophrenia isn't left to the whims of psychiatrists—they could simply do a spinal tap and then decide if there is something physically wrong, if anything. Thomas Satz, Ken Kesey, and the Rosenhan Experiment exposed the philosphical problems with pathologizing—permanently—a transient behaviour. Once you're labeled 'schizophrenic,' they'll violate your constitutional rights while keeping you in a box for weeks—justifying it using circular logic (or they used to). Psychiatry is mostly a semantic game in the absence of any biochemical definition. Like the label 'conspiracy theorist,' the term has historically been used to pathologize society's critics—as long as they're of the working class. The diagnosis can almost be like gaslighting, or the historical diagnosis of 'hysteria'—a cheap tactic of getting others to not take you seriously. But just remember: Holden Caulfield, Cpt. John Yossarian, and R.P. McMurphy were actually the sane ones. All schizophrenia seems to be doing right now is keeping thousands of people in dubious jobs while marginalizing a select group of people. And if someone's mad, there's probably a good reason for that.
 
Last edited:

noordinary

Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2016
Messages
209
OP
Travis

Travis

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2016
Messages
3,189
@Travis[/USER] what newsletter
Okay, I'll admit that cloud punctuation is somewhat . . . whimsical — However! we don't yet have a conventional symbol to punctuate thoughts. Historically, the amount of conventional typographical symbols was limited by the printing press but today we have no such restrictions: we have thousands of glyphs to choose from—our modern HTML toolbox. The cloud, be whatever its shortcomings, is an intuitive thought symbol.

The only new typographical symbol of the computer age seems to be the interrobang (‽), and I think we could use about three more. Perhaps I'll start petitioning the computer programmers so we can get these two.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom