Articles, Blog

John Schell (U. Utah): Getting Fuel to the Cell’s Engine: The Importance of Metabolism in Disease

September 2, 2019


  • Reply Sain apudas October 13, 2015 at 9:22 am

    Heh, never thought about that smell advantage of yeast labs. It would certainly be more enjoyable than the terrible smell with bacteria or that stench of sterility with animal cells.

  • Reply frankyhold16 October 13, 2015 at 4:01 pm

    Great talk!

  • Reply Duc Trương November 10, 2015 at 2:21 pm

    If MPC over-express can reduce cancer growth. Would under-express MPC stimulate cancer growth? Or in the cases of MPC lacking mutants species (mice for instant), will they eventually develop tumoric cells?

  • Reply jongchul seon December 15, 2015 at 7:16 am

    It is really awesome clip explaining about mitochondria.

  • Reply MarC NIcolA Fraessdorf January 1, 2016 at 12:54 pm

    Being also in that topic and researching the connection between the shift from oxphos to aerobic glycolysis as inflammation mediator, I'm curious what controls the expression of MPC…

  • Reply Carolina Zúñiga June 18, 2016 at 5:27 pm


  • Reply Chris Briscoe August 25, 2016 at 4:17 pm

    I love these videos!

  • Reply Masoud Ahmed September 16, 2016 at 2:32 am

    Such a nice dr , intellegent to i fell jealous for not being able to study what i want .

  • Reply Damien Sanderson September 25, 2016 at 5:31 pm

    I enjoyed the excellent presentation.

    There is just one point I would like to clarify: At 20:50 Otto Warburg’s view of the cause of cancer is mentioned. In his 1956 paper he listed many and varied causes of cancer . . . and to quote him, “ . . . there is only one common cause into which all causes of cancer merge, the irreversible injuring of respiration” His point was that insufficient respiration initiates tumorigenesis. He was not focussing on specifics of why poorly function mitochondria initiated cancer. It might be chemicals from tar or radiation that damage the mitochondria . . or it may be the defective MPC. Warburg would predict that defective MPC in the mitochondria would compromised respiration and lead to cancerous cells. (as appears the case). Supporters of the idea that cancer has a metabolic origin (like Warburg) would predict that if you supported compromised respiration by facilitating the expression of MPC you would weaken the tumorigenic effects, which has been shown to be the case. The experiments support Warburg’s perspective.

    From all I have read, Warburg’s ideas have never been ‘proved’ wrong. His ideas went out of fashion as the fascination of modern genomics took hold, and the feeling that, in principle, we should be able to account for tumorigenesis simply by mutations of the nuclear DNA . . . This perspective has captured the attention of researchers who feel this is where the holy grail “answer to cancer” is to be found. Perhaps more people should join those presently looking for the pathways whereby mitochondrial malfunction damages the nuclear DNA. (It is still essential to study the role of nuclear DNA in cancer pathology, in particular with regard to seeking effective therapeutics)

  • Reply NLSoulja99 December 12, 2016 at 5:54 pm

    Very nice presentation, but quite basic research. Nothing extraordinary to me about it… Keep going though, thanks!

  • Reply Alexander Litvinov May 27, 2017 at 7:00 pm

    Thank you!

  • Reply Oscar Pacheco February 6, 2019 at 9:55 pm

    Great! Two things, though: what really happened with that "little girl"? I feel like I missed something… and: you could change the title. "Importance of Metabolism in Disease"? Years of classes…

  • Leave a Reply