An article released Sunday in the New England Journal of Medicine, plus two others in Nature Genetics, say odds for multiple sclerosis go up distinctly with the presence of three gene alleles — with one, rather dramatically. One genetic region has long been known, if with less sharp stats, but two others are new. The discoveries arise from new, gene-scanning technologies and their targets that are not easy to describe succinctly. That gives reporters a challenge once they get past boiler plate on what MS is and the exuberant quotes from the researchers.

In the San Francisco Chronicle Sabin Russell charges into the technology head-on, actually putting the machinery first in his lede, with the discoveries second and, soon thereafter, a note that the findings build the case for MS as an auto-immune disease. He commendably lets readers in on a bit of the logic of gene scanning. That is, the main markers that correlate with a disease are often genes that have nothing to do with the disease — but they signal that “somewhere nearby on the genome” is the bad actor. He doesn’t bother readers with SNPs, however.

Canadian Press’s Sheryl Ubelacker skates around much of the detail (perhaps necessarily; her piece is brief). She does does get in SNPs and explains that this means single nucleotide polymorphisms (although one wonders what most readers will do with that translation), and stresses that this is the first significant move forward in MS’s genetics in 30 years.

Reuters Julie Steenhuysen has a story that highlights one of the difficulties reporting succinctly on gene and disease links. Deep in her story she points out that the problematics arise from variants of genes that everybody has. Before that they are just genes or gene complexes for MS. Nomenclature persnicketyness is, to be sure, hard to pursue in short news articles (see, for another example, the wide flurries of news about E. coli contamination and disease, even though we all have E. coli and only a few variants ooze loads of toxins);

-CP

Other stories:

NY Times Nicholas Wade keeps the hype flame low and, in a succinct piece, neatly puts the news into context of both overall MS research and general gene-scanning efforts; New Scientist Alison Motluk (w/Reuters); The Herald (UK) Julia Horton neatly gets in that these are “mutant version” of more common genes; USA Today Kathleen Fackelmann, in a nice touch, kicker-quotes the venture capitalist and MS-patient who paid for one of the studies (and who Fackelmann profiled last year); Newsday Delthia Ricks calls it a genetic bonanza; Raleigh News & Observer Sarah Lindenfeld Hall with  localization to Duke researchers and to a nearby family;  The Scotsman Lyndsay Moss calls it a massive step forward; Globe and Mail André Picard whose experience as a medical writer shows in the nomenclature details; HealthDay Amanda Gardner; Salt Lake Tribune Lisa Rosetta with a feature, vignette lede; Independent (UK) Steve Connor calls it a major milestone; Times (UK) Mark Henderson; lots more….. ;

Grist for the Mill:

UC San Francisco Press Release; Duke U. Press Release; U Miami Press Release;

This entry was posted on Monday, July 30th, 2007 at 12:10 pm and is filed under Health & Medicine Stories. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.