Only one month at 100mg. It seems like she had no response during titration—probably 25, 50, 75 and then 100mg. It seems a little strange that she had no response until she hit exactly 100mg—but life is strange.
Can someone explain the bolded part? It seems to be a key part of the reasoning. What does «preferentially captured» mean, and is that something that actually happens?
Preferential capture is a biochemical principle that has to do with receptor binding affinity to a ligand. It is a real phenomenon but the basis for invoking it here with such confidence and claiming that it causes cells to be functionally "starved" of GR activity is...entirely unsubstantiated.
Firstly, the mutation does not occur in the ligand binding domain (LBD) of the protein, it's all the way on the other end. There are instances where mutations in other parts of the protein can change the shape of the LBD, but even more likely this mutation affects something that matters after cortisol already binds like nuclear localization. The conclusion from this 2024 preprint was basically that we know this mutation affects enhances the downstream effect of cortisol binding to the MR but we don't know why. And the effect it would have on intracellular GR activity is even less known
Long story short: as far as anecdotal evidence goes it's theoretically plausible that this person's health is affected by this mutation and that the drug did something to counteract it, I just don't think the biological explanation for why can be trusted
Long story short: as far as anecdotal evidence goes it's theoretically plausible that this person's health is affected by this mutation and that the drug did something to counteract it, I just don't think the biological explanation for why can be trusted
11 or 12% is the frequency of the allele. Everyone has two alleles. So out of all the alleles in a population (twice the population), how many are C? That's the allele frequency.
The proportion of people who have two copies of the minor allele is fairly rare - around 1%.
Even a common mutation could be relevant if the mutation worsens a problem that is already under strain from the disease state. That might explain things like how two people end up with very similar disease presentation, except one has debilitating OI as a primary symptom and the other doesn't. But yeah, I don't have faith it would explain the entirety of the illness
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.