Mammals can absorb oxygen through their intestines

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/05/mammals-can-breathe-through-their-intestines

by infodocket • 5 years ago

103 119 5 years ago

sciencemag.org

bluemania• 5 years ago

Scuba diving just became more interesting

bobbylox• 5 years ago

brb submitting the "Diving Suppository" to YC

jandrese2• 5 years ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqfLxCFdXaE

fsloth• 5 years ago

I was thinking of the old aspiration of filling up the lungs of divers with the oxygen carrying fluorocarbon fluid (like in Abyss). It was deemed apparently impractical because it's too hard to breath. Well... you don't need to breathe with this.

_nalply• 5 years ago

I imagine a butt plug with two hoses, one for oxygenated fluorocarbon input, the other for output, and a cycle where fluid coming out from the butt will needed to be cleaned and re-oxygenated. The input hose could be long enough to reach the cecum (the end of the colon) and perhaps have additional holes to distribute the oxygenated fluid to the whole colon.

TMI?

standardUser• 5 years ago

Two things really stood out in this article. One is how brutal animal experimentation can be. The other is the opening line.

annoyingnoob• 5 years ago

It was the picture that really stood out to me.

GordonS• 5 years ago

I read a lot of medical research papers, and I've been thinking about this recently. Every time I read about a rat being "euthanized" or "sacrificed", when they have neuropathy induced by toxins, when they have limbs amputated, when they have their spine severed... I can't help but pause for a moment and think about that animal.

I wonder if there are any good estimates of how many rats, rabbits, dogs and otherwise are maimed and killed each year for medical (or cosmetic) research. Is there, realistically, anything that would change this?

keiferski5• 5 years ago

It is estimated that the annual use of vertebrate animals—from zebrafish to non-human primates—ranges from tens to more than 100 million.[2] In the European Union, vertebrate species represent 93% of animals used in research, and 11.5 million animals were used there in 2011. By one estimate the number of mice and rats used in the United States alone in 2001 was 80 million.[3] Mice, rats, fish, amphibians and reptiles together account for over 85% of research animals.[4]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_testing

creamynebula• 5 years ago

Other than a solid majority of people being aware of and actively against such practices, I don't see it.

david422• 5 years ago

Yea, every time I receive medical care for some amazing drug or whatever, it crosses my mind of how many animals probably suffered getting it to that point.

And I think maybe we should just call it good right now and stop the experimentation. But that's not really realistic either.

I don't know if there is a good solution :(

f6v4• 5 years ago

That’s why there’s a monument to a mouse [0].

Is there, realistically, anything that would change this?

In all confidence, nothing is going to replace animal models in science for decades to come(at least when we talk about biology). Yes, you can study development and disease in cell culture or organoids to some extent. But those don’t match the dynamics of a fully-functioning organism. Even though findings from mouse experiments often don’t translate well to humans, it’s our best bet. Computational biology can reduce the amount of experiments you need to do. For example, you can try to predict drug toxicity or identify key regulators of a certain cell type. But there’re always false positives(gene-regulatory networks are like 90% FP) and you always need to go back to the lab.

If anything, I hope for more in-vivo experiments with the developments in CRISPR.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monument_to_the_laboratory_mou...

nonameiguess2• 5 years ago

In one group of 11 mice, four had their intestines scrubbed to thin the mucosal lining and improve oxygen absorption. Next, the researchers injected pure, pressurized oxygen into the rectums of the scrubbed mice and four of the seven unscrubbed ones.

I don't even want to know how they do this and whose terrible job this is.

bostonsre• 5 years ago

Yea... poor mice.. hopefully they weren't awake.

majkinetor• 5 years ago

One is how brutal animal experimentation can be

If you think that is brutal you didn't see anything in animal experimentation.

poidos2• 5 years ago

Back when I was a pre-med, my first summer research internship was in a cancer lab. After a couple of weeks of cell culture and autoclaving stuff, they let me start working with the mice. They were inducing lung cancer in them to test some novel compound that was supposed to cure the cancer. Every day, I'd have to go to the mice room, swap in fresh water and food, and then bag all the dead mice individually in rubber gloves, and leave them on my supervisor's desk. Really opened my eyes.

rajin4443• 5 years ago

I've always found some solace in not being wasteful. In theory we're working towards a better future - harming animals now will result in world with no harm for an infinite number of descendants later.

This is more or less "do the ends justify the means", but we live in a zero sum universe, so every action we take has to answer this question (if I eat this food, somebody else can't eat it). It's a matter of determining what we think justifies the cost.

nonameiguess2• 5 years ago

I was originally a biology in major in college. In Cell Bio, we had a lab that involved attempting to examine one of the circulatory subsystems of a limpet, but in vivo, so the idea was to chemically paralyze it and then dissect while it was still alive. I am certain to this day that I jacked it up somehow, because that poor limpet was absolutely not paralyzed and was squirming the entire time I was trying to cut it open. This will be seared into my memory for the rest of my life and I never took another biology class after that, only completing a minor instead.

miles• 5 years ago

how brutal animal experimentation can be.

Mark Twain expressed it rather succinctly[1]:

"I believe I am not interested to know whether Vivisection produces results that are profitable to the human race or doesn't. To know that the results are profitable to the race would not remove my hostility to it. The pains which it inflicts upon unconsenting animals is the basis of my enmity towards it, and it is to me sufficient justification of the enmity without looking further."

[1] https://books.google.com/books?id=-cq4AQAAQBAJ&pg=PA238

harveywi2• 5 years ago

So this explains how my scrum master was able to speak about the Agile Manifesto without taking a breath.

phkahler• 5 years ago

> So this explains how my scrum master was able to speak about the Agile Manifesto without taking a breath.

Well no because to breath the intestines would need air and not be full of $4|7 ;-)

f6v4• 5 years ago

I read it as “scrotum master” at first. Then realized there was no change in meaning.

genericone2• 5 years ago

"My scrum master was just talking out of his ass"

princesse• 5 years ago

Can't wait to see this in effect during the next Tour de France.

giardini5• 5 years ago

Seems like "exhalation" would become a problem for riders other than the race leader (at the head of the peloton), although perhaps that is already an unaddressed problem.

jmagaro88• 5 years ago

I guess "blowing smoke up your ass" will no longer have a negative connotation

ectopod• 5 years ago

It started off as an allegedly positive thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_smoke_enema

antender• 5 years ago

This article is like reading Gulliver's Travels Part III: A Voyage to Laputa, but as a real-life thing. Can't stop laughing!

Robotbeat• 5 years ago

Don’t know why you were downvoted; there’s a very similar part to this article in the book, except instead of pigs and mice, it’s dogs.

Other parts of that book mention machine-generated texts (with hilarious results). Almost 300 years later, it’s remarkable how relevant much of the lampooning of the sciences (broadly considered) in this book remains!

ACAVJW4H• 5 years ago

When can we reasonably expect the “cyclist gets banned from tour de france after committee finds athlete installed enteric oxygenation device in the saddle” headline?

keiferski5• 5 years ago

Just wait until genetic modification becomes available on the black market. Then things will get really interesting.

rajin4443• 5 years ago

Maybe we'll finally start addressing real unearned privilege: genetic. Pro sports players didn't do anything to earn the genetic makeup which accounts for a significant portion of their ability, yet they aren't asked to acknowledge it and take steps to reduce its impact.

giardini5• 5 years ago

Yet another reason to give up bicycle racing. Back to swimming for me!

ARandomerDude• 5 years ago

I only exhale with my intestines.

newsbinator4• 5 years ago

Would this somehow be more protective during suspended animation (e.g. during the re-warming stage) than providing a person oxygen via the lungs?

geocrasher• 5 years ago

I might get downvoted for this, but here it goes:

Lets say that your life depends on intestinal ventilation, and you've got a steady flow of oxygenated fluids going into the uh... places... and you need to go number 2? Is it a race to see how quick you can "go" before you get hypoxic and die? Does the constant flow of oxygenated material flush out any waste? It's like wondering "how does Cat Dog go #2" I suppose. But... really. How does it?

lallysingh• 5 years ago

I suspect you're fed intravenously while sitting on your air

stevecat• 5 years ago

I'm a mammal.

ravenstine• 5 years ago

So if you're performing CPR, could it increase the chance of survival if someone else performed mouth-to-anus on the person? Maybe in the future first aid kits won't just come with CPR masks but also anal dilators and a brush.

barbazoo4• 5 years ago

Only if the airway is blocked to a degree that ventilation through the anus would be more effective

armatav• 5 years ago

Now this is a quality comment on the speculation of new and advanced technology for saving peoples lives.

harveywi2• 5 years ago

It could be more hygienic than with mouth contact, for example if a bicycle tire pump were used.

jandrese2• 5 years ago

Such a kit would probably come with a oxygenated liquid enema if the article is to be believed. Even if this is effective it would probably have some pushback from CPR instructors.

I'm thinking it would probably be more of a first responder tool. Something in the ambulance.

swiley• 5 years ago

There are so many futurama jokes that this article would make possible.

giardini5• 5 years ago

Perhaps some nose clips or a HAZMAT suit?

SpinsInCircles• 5 years ago

In the UK we say I was so tired I was breathing out my arse. Maybe phrases come from a deeper understanding of ourselves than we imagine. Or Maybe not :-)

encryptluks2• 5 years ago

Who new the next-gen oxygen bars would be more akin to fecal transplants?

ihaveajob• 5 years ago

It's only a matter of time before this is used as a standard performance enhancement trick for endurance sports. Only saying this half-jokingly.

Ralfp• 5 years ago

„It was found that John Doe took liquid-oxygen enema before run, unfairly improving his performance.”

huitzitziltzin• 5 years ago

Given that liquid oxygen boils at about -300 F, if John Doe can finish a race after a liquid oxygen enema he deserves first prize for something!

FredPret• 5 years ago

Now you can pant both ways when you run

dEnigma• 5 years ago

But the no-pant strategy would be more effective.

testplzignore• 5 years ago

Tom Brady secretly discovered this years ago. Deflategate was a distraction from the real scandal: Inflategate.

giardini5• 5 years ago

"Only saying this half-assedly."

FTFY

pazimzadeh• 5 years ago

I wonder if this causes blooms of facultative anaerobes in the gut (they can use oxygen https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4832419/)

root_axis• 5 years ago

Am I weird for thinking this is a cruel experiment?

bosswipe• 5 years ago

I was thinking the same, asphyxiating pigs and mice to time how long until they die is just cruel.

zardo• 5 years ago

I don't understand how suffocating animals to prove they will die can pass an ethics review.

cratermoon2• 5 years ago

Not to mention "intestinal scrubbing".

Tade0• 5 years ago

I wonder how effective this is in humans? Could someone with e.g. burned lungs be saved using this technique?

If so, it sounds like a much cheaper alternative to ECMO in some cases.

zerealshadowban• 5 years ago

but where does the CO2 go? normally it's exhaled via the lungs

FiatLuxDave• 5 years ago

Good question. From the original Cell paper at https://www.cell.com/med/fulltext/S2666-6340(21)00153-7

Interestingly, the arterial pressure of CO2 tended to be decreased in the l-EVA group, presumably due to the excellent O2 - and CO2-carrying capacity of perfluorochemicals (50 mL O2/dL and 160–210 mL CO2/dL, respectively), while the arterial pH did not change in our experiment. These results indicate that perfluorochemicals also act as an adsorbent for elevated CO2, indicating a need for future follow-up studies of gas exchange mechanisms.

So, they speculate that some of it is absorbed by the perflourodecalin.

ordu• 5 years ago

In Russia there is a kid's joke about hedgehog who learned how to breathe with it's ass, then it sat down on a stump and suffocated. I think, kids knew something.

ghastmaster2• 5 years ago

I'm curious which PFC they are using. A cursory search indicates that PFCs are hazardous to our health. Benzene in particular.

Brentward• 5 years ago

Benzene is not a PFC as it only contains carbon and hydrogen, not the fluorine that puts the F in PFC. According to Wikipedia [1], "fluoroalkanes are generally inert and non-toxic" and "do not bioaccumulate." That was surprising to me too, but apparently they have many established medical uses, including liquid breathing, which makes this application seem more reasonable.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorocarbon

ghastmaster2• 5 years ago

Thanks! I misread the chart in the wiki, not realizing benzene was there as a comparison to hexaflourobenzene.

thereisnospork• 5 years ago

I wonder if a surgeon could bypass and isolate from the digestive tract a sufficiently large section of the upper intestine to allow for a person to 'breathe' synthetically for a period of time. Ideally without overly disrupting the digestive process. Could be useful for people waiting for lung transplants or who otherwise can't breath conventionally for an extended period.

anotherevan• 5 years ago

Not sure if this passes the sniff test.

Mammals can absorb oxygen through their intestines

Related Stories