* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Alz genetics piece
Biology and consumer behaviour wikipedia , lookup
Quantitative trait locus wikipedia , lookup
Tay–Sachs disease wikipedia , lookup
Gene therapy wikipedia , lookup
Fetal origins hypothesis wikipedia , lookup
Medical genetics wikipedia , lookup
Gene expression profiling wikipedia , lookup
Artificial gene synthesis wikipedia , lookup
Site-specific recombinase technology wikipedia , lookup
History of genetic engineering wikipedia , lookup
Nutriepigenomics wikipedia , lookup
Microevolution wikipedia , lookup
Neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis wikipedia , lookup
Designer baby wikipedia , lookup
Genome (book) wikipedia , lookup
Public health genomics wikipedia , lookup
Epigenetics of neurodegenerative diseases wikipedia , lookup
Sue Halpern 802-388-3673 One morning last May, two white SUVs left the shade of the parking garage at the Grand Almirante Hotel and Casino in Santiago, Dominican Republic as the gamblers and prostitutes were calling it a night and headed north to rural Navarette. The lead vehicle was driven by Angel Piriz, a thirty-six-year-old Cuban doctor who now lives in Harlem. Beside him was Roserina Estevez, a recent graduate of medical school in Santiago who, like Piriz, is working as research physician at Columbia University under the supervision of Dr. Richard Mayeux. For nearly twenty years Mayeux, a neurologist, epidemiologist, and director of the Taub Institute for Research on Alzheimer’s Disease and the Aging Brain, has been compiling what has become the most comprehensive genetic library of families with Alzheimer’s disease in the world. The family members are either residents of the largely Dominican neighborhood of Washington Heights where Columbia Presbyterian Hospital is located, or, like the people Piriz, Estevez and their colleague Vinny Santana in the car behind theirs were hoping to see in Navarette, from the Dominican Republic itself. Alzheimer’s, which ultimately may turn out to be too broad a term to be of much use clinically, is typically divided into two types. There is the early-onset variety, which tends to strike between the ages of thirty and fifty and is very rare, occurring in less than five percent of cases, and there is the much more common late onset disease, which tends to afflict people who are sixty-five and older. Early onset Alzheimer’s is a genetic disease that follows the simple law of Mendelian inheritance: if you are born with the gene, you get the disease. Late onset Alzheimer’s is thought to be genetic, too, but in a much more messy way: rather than being caused by a single gene, it appears to be the result of a passel of genes that, individually or together, are believed to increase one’s risk of dementia. So far only one of those risk factor genes has been conclusively identified and confirmed. In May, though, as the Columbia researchers trolled the island, drawing blood that was sent by courier each morning to New York, it looked like Mayeux’s library, which contains DNA and neuropsychological data collected from over 13,466 participants, most of whom either have Alzheimer’s or are related to someone with the disease, might soon yield a second. “Our belief is that late onset Alzheimer’s disease is genetically determined because it tends to aggregate in families,” Mayeux had told me five months earlier, when I first visited him in his office on the 19th floor of Presbyterian Hospital. A deceptively easy-going Louisianan who talks with a lingering nasal twang, Mayeux, who is 59, oversees a staff of neuroscientists, geneticists, psychologists, epidemiologists, neurologists, cell biologists, biochemists, genetic counselors, and animal modelers spread over two floors of the hospital, as well as in outposts at the medical school and Columbia’s Neurological Institute, where he also runs the Gertrude Sergievsky Center. Many, like Joe Lee, who sifts through the 30,000 genes that comprise the human genome looking for a genetic quirk that could explain the colonization of the brain by sticky plaques and neurofibulary tangles—the signature pathology of Alzheimer’s disease--and Scott Small, a neurologist who has developed a method of using magnetic resonance imaging to look deep into the brain and see trouble before trouble has a name, took the conventional academic route of medical degrees and doctorates. But a surprising number never intended to chase what Mayeux calls “the great white whale of neuroscience.” Angel Piriz, for instance, trained as a surgeon in Havana but, unable to practice clinical medicine in the United States, had spent three years working as a bookkeeper for a Manhattan construction company until he noticed the Columbia job on the internet. Vinny Santana, a security guard in the Presbyterian Hospital emergency room, was offered extra hours to escort Mayeux’s field researchers to interviews in Washington Heights, eventually became one of those researchers himself, and then the research coordinator and co-author of four scientific papers. Joe Flynn, sitting in a darkened room in front of a computer screen making mathematical sense of MRI data, had spent seven years as an accountant on Wall Street. Christian Habeck, who created diagnostic algorithms, was an astrophysicist. Even Mayeux did not come to the hunt directly. “I started off thinking this was not a genetic disease. I thought it was environmental, associated with aging. But the accumulating data convinced me, seeing that this disease tracks in families. It doesn’t always follow a pattern, but it does track in families, so that if you have family members with the disease you have a much higher risk, and siblings with the disease give you an even higher risk. The evidence was very hard to counter.” Mayeux took a bound volume the size of Webster’s Third from his bookshelf and began flipping through the pages as he spoke. It was a encyclopedia of the family trees of people in his study that showed who was related to whom and which ones had the disease, who was disease-free, and who was living in the border town between lucidity and dementia. “What we wanted to do was find a population where we thought the rates were higher, because the thing about genetics is that if you try to identify people who carry the gene, you are looking for unusual people. It’s not like epidemiology, where you try to get random samples of random people. Genetics is just the opposite. You want a biased population. You want families where there is more of the disease because you have a better chance of figuring out what the gene is. “That’s how we stumbled into this study of people in the Dominican Republic. We noticed when we were doing a general population study of elderly people who live around the hospital that Dominicans had about three times the rate of Alzheimer’s disease compared to the whites and blacks in the community. So you have to ask yourself why that would be. Then it starts to explain itself that at least in the DR, Dominicans tend to marry other Dominicans, and you don’t have different populations moving in there. You have a smaller genetic pool, and first cousins marrying first cousins, so the gene pool tends to stay enriched. Here’s one,” Mayeux said, pointing to a page in the book. “These two people are twins. Look at how many people who are related to them are affected and how many are beginning to experience symptoms.” The family that Piriz, Estevez and Santana were hoping to track down in Navarette had similar qualities. For one thing it was huge—one member alone had had twenty-three children. For another, a number of relatives had already been diagnosed with probable Alzheimer’s. (Probable because, so far, the only way to conclusively diagnose the disease is at autopsy. But likely, because the doctors at Columbia, like those at Alzheimer Disease Research Centers all over the country, are accurate about ninety percent of the time.) “This is a branch of the original family we saw here last year,” explained Santana, who is in charge of drawing the pedigrees, as well as directing all the field work. “The proban—which means the first person in the family we saw—who was in her late 60s, died in February. She’s confirmed with the disease. In her generation a couple of cousins and siblings have AD. One of her children has it, and a couple are borderline. There’s some first cousin intermarriage. These people we’re seeing today are her cousins. If we can find them.” Navarette isn’t much of a town—a strip of concrete shops on either side of the road, and street vendors selling pineapples and mangoes and goat meat so fresh that the goats are still tethered to the stall—and the family didn’t have much of an address. “It’s called Ginger Alley,” Santana said, turning sharply into a narrow dirt track patrolled by chickens. Piriz, who had briefly gotten lost, pulled in behind Santana, and without much conversation, he and Estevez assembled their medical kits while Santana gathered the clipboards, notebooks, and questionnaires they would need to administer the neuropsychological tests that, along with the medical exam, were crucial for determining who, at case conferences in New York a few weeks later, would be diagnosed with the disease and who would be said, so far, to be exempt. Then, consulting Santana’s provisional pedigree as if it were a map, they spread out along Ginger Alley, Estevez knocking on the door of the house closest to the cars, Santana and Piriz walking farther back, past houses made of concrete and tin, through someone’s dim, fly-infested kitchen that led to a narrower alley and a warren of corrugated houses, asking for a man named Matias de Jesus Vargas, the proban’s second cousin. As they went they attracted little boy after little boy, a whole parade of them, who eventually led the researchers to a spare, three-room dwelling: Matias’ house. Matias, a gaunt eighty-three year old man, tanned from a life growing bananas and tending fields of rice, was in bed lying bare-chested in blue shorts on top of yellow smiley face sheets, surrounded by two of his five wives, four of his fourteen children, two of his daughters’ daughters, a great-granddaughter, a brother, two cousins, the sister of one of his wives, and an indeterminate number of children who might have been related to the assortment of adults. He wasn’t saying much. A few months before he had been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and wasn’t expected to outlive the year. Even so, he had consented to Santana’s request to participate in the study. The neuropsychological tests that Santana prepared to administer to the man in the bed were developed by Yaakov Stern, a psychologist who has worked with Richard Mayeux for 21 years, and they were adapted for the Dominican population by Stern and a young neuropsychologist at the Taub Institute named Jennifer Manley, to make sure they were, in Stern’s term, “culture-fair.” The neuropsychological battery assesses a variety of cognitive functions, many having to do with memory, since in Alzheimer’s disease, memory—for the names of things, for words, for recent events—tends to deteriorate profoundly early-on. Indeed, some researchers, notably the psychologists Mony de Leon and Susan DeSanti at NYU, and the neurologist Rod Shankle at the University of California at Irvine, were finding certain neuropsychological tests to be predictive of disease. And in Yaakov Stern’s lab it had been observed that results on a verbal fluency test appeared to foretell who, among the afflicted, would die the fastest. “My feeling is that the best tool we have for diagnosing AD is neuropsych,” Stern, a rangy man with a loping gait, said last winter as we walked back to the hospital from the Neurological Institute, where he had just given grand rounds on the concept of “cognitive reserve,” the reservoir of synapses and neurons that lets some people, even those with plaques and tangles, resist dementia. “Neuropsych is sensitive to early changes. But the point of transition where someone starts to develop problems, well, it’s hard to make a fast rule about any one person that they are definitely going to develop Alzheimer’s disease.” To determine who, in the Dominican population, had the disease—as opposed to who will develop the disease—Stern and his colleagues have developed an algorithm that gives them a score that they have found to be clinically reliable. “When someone comes to our Memory Disorders Clinic in New York, we try to use the best norms for them based on their education, their age, even their gender,” Stern explained. “That’s the typical neuropsychological approach. It asks: what can we expect from this person. And if they deviate from the norm then we can assume there is some deficit. “In the genetics study in the Dominican Republic, we decided to use an algorithm because, first of all, we didn’t know what the norms there were when we started, and secondly we wanted to be consistent and unbiased. So for every test we have a cut score, below which we’d say that’s bad, and if a person meets our criteria for cognitive deficiency they have cognitive deficiency, and if they don’t, they don’t—for the purposes of diagnosing dementia. The idea behind the algorithm is that we wanted memory to be the gatekeeper. If someone didn’t have a bad memory, I didn’t want to say they had dementia. Most of the time the algorithm works pretty well.” “What day of the week is it?” Vinny Santana asked Matias de Jesus Vargas. “ What is the date? What year? Where are we? Can you count backward from twenty? Can you name the months of the year in reverse order? I am going to tell you a name and address and I want you to repeat what I’ve said: Juan Perez, Avenida Duarte cuatro y dos, Samana.” This was the warm-up, and de Jesus Vargas was doing okay. He knew he was in the bedroom, not the kitchen; he knew the year; he knew it was summer, though technically it was spring. Santana leaned in close. “I’m going to read you a list of twelve words, and when I’m done I want you to repeat them back to me. Juevo,” he began. “Lava.” De Jesus Vargas fingered the religious medal he wore around his neck and looked lost. “I can’t remember,” he said, pointing to his head. In the algorithm developed by Yaakov Stern, the cut score on this test is 25: if someone, given the opportunity to repeat any of these twelve words six times, for a top score of seventy-two, can’t get to twenty-five, he can be considered for “case status.” When the test was over, de Jesus Vargas’ score was fifteen. In the next room, Angel Piriz was going through the same routine with one of de Jesus Vargas’ wives, seventy-year-old Luz Maria Lopez. Lopez, a short woman in a faded housedress and heel-worn flip-flops, looked at him suspiciously. “Do you ever find yourself getting lost?” Piriz asked. “Hell no,” she said. He took her blood pressure, looked into her eyes, tested her reflexes. Then he put on green latex gloves, took out a syringe, and prepared to draw her blood. Across the street from Columbia Presbyterian Hospital, at the Russ Berry Biomedical Center, there is a room with a bank of industrial freezers containing 28,544 vials of blood. In 1986, when Richard Mayeux inaugurated what is known as the WHICAP study, a sweeping epidemiological investigation of the health and habits of 2500 elderly residents of Washington Heights, he instructed the researchers to collect blood in addition to recording demographic and medical data. The field of Alzheimer’s genetics was in its infancy and putting blood on ice was either capricious or prescient, depending on who was paying the bill. It had only been three years since George Glenner and Cai’ne Wong, at the University of California, San Diego, succeeded in isolating amyloid, the key constituent of the plaques that accumulate in an Alzheimer’s brain, and two years since they discovered that amyloid was a peptide—a protein fragment that came in different lengths. Glenner and Wong called the peptide beta amyloid and proposed that a genetic mutation causing the overproduction of amyloid, would be found somewhere along chromosome 21, the chromosome that goes awry in Down Syndrome. The amyloid they had sequenced had come from Down’s patients, and by middle-age, most people with Down Syndrome experience Alzheimer’s-like symptoms, so it seemed logical that chromosome 21 would be implicated. And that is where, in 1990, four years after Mayeux’s WHICAP researchers had begun to fan out across Washington Heights, it was found by Alison Goate and John Hardy, geneticists at the University of London. The first Alzheimer’s gene was called APP, an acronym that stood for amyloid precursor protein. An APP mutation caused the overproduction of beta amyloid in the brain; without exception, a person who carried the mutation developed Alzheimer’s disease. APP gave scientists a way to begin to understand what was happening in an Alzheimer brain, and a rudimentary hypothesis: Alzheimer’s disease was caused by clumps of beta-amyloid that strangled neurons and synapses. If, before, scientists were looking into a black hole of disease, they were now peering into a tunnel, and they believed they knew, with some confidence, how a small number people tumbled through its entrance. “When it was first discovered, we thought that APP was it,” recalled Mayeux. “That it was the Alzheimer’s gene.” But the math didn’t work: of the millions of cases of Alzheimer’s disease, the APP mutation occurred in less than two hundred of them. The search for additional Alzheimer’s genes took off during the nineteen nineties, and by mid-decade three more had been found and confirmed. Two, called presinillins, were deterministic genes that, like APP, caused early-onset Alzheimer’s. Like APP, too, they interfered with amyloid production—though differently, by cleaving the amyloid protein--which gave further credence to the idea that too much amyloid precipitated dementia. Still, the presinillin genes weren’t it, either; PS1, which was found by Peter St. George Hyslop, at the University of Toronto, occurred in about 200 families worldwide, and PS2, which was discovered by Hyslop as well as Gerald Shellenberger at the University of Washington, in only 30. The fourth Alzheimer gene, though, was different. It wasn’t rare, it didn’t cause early-onset Alzheimer’s, it influenced late-onset, common Alzheimer’s, and it wasn’t even a mutation. Rather, APOE4, discovered by researchers at Duke, is a naturally occurring variant of a gene that we all carry; the variant shows up in about 33% percent of all people. APOE4, which interferes with the body’s ability to clear beta amyloid from the brain, increases the risk of getting AD, but it doesn’t cause it. Many who have the APOE4 gene never get Alzheimer’s disease, while many people who don’t, do, and still, twelve years after its discovery, no one can say why that is. When the Columbia team had been at work for more than nine hours along Ginger Alley, Angel Piriz sat in Mathias de Jesus Vargas’ house interviewing the last volunteer of the day, Maria Lopez Fernandez, the eighty year-old sister of de Jesus Vargas’ wife Luz Maria. Fernandez, who was educated through the first grade, had borne twenty-six children. When Piriz asked her how she was doing, if she forgot things or got disoriented, Fernandez answered by telling him that she still threaded her own needles. Then she failed every test he gave her—the months, backward, the word list, Juan Perez’s address. “This is why we do a medical exam and a neuropsych exam,” Piriz said, packing up. “Even though the tests indicate that she has a problem, she functions just fine.” Meanwhile, outside, under a canopy of banana trees, Santana was chatting with about fifteen members of the extended family, puzzling out their pedigree as if it were a crossword. Establishing accurate family histories is essential to finding genes, and can be just as challenging. People’s memories are faulty, public records are inaccurate, and there are often inconsistencies in both. One time, after Santana had been following a family for three months, drawing and redrawing its genealogy and never getting it right, he discovered that one member of the family had had two husbands, both of whom were named Rafael Vargas. And in one village where the Columbia team was currently working, not only was every person related, they all had the same last name. Some of them shared the same first name, too. It was nearly six o’clock. The researchers had collected fifty-one vials of blood, repeated the words on the verbal recall test 1,224 times, completed neuropsychological and medical tests on seventeen people, reconnected Matias de Jesus Vargas’ intravenous drip of nutrition and chemotherapy which had fallen out two days earlier, and suggested a salve for one of his nephews who was suffering from a rash that had thickened the skin on his arms and legs to a carapace. There was another cousin to see, a man who lived on the opposite side of the highway that runs through Navarette, and possibly a relative in Washington Heights. Santana made a note to track her down when he was back in New York and called the cousin across town to tell him the team would see him the next day, when they were returning from interviewing subjects in Puerta Plata. Then he backed his SUV into a tree, which caused the bumper to crinkle and the crew of little boys to materialize again. He checked to see that the blood in the cooler was all right, shooed the boys away, then exited Ginger Alley, which he wouldn’t see again for a year or two, at which point, he guessed, “some of the borderlines will have converted.” In the lectures Richard Mayeux gives to people who may be unfamiliar with the simplest facts of genetics—that genes are proteins, and proteins are made of a sequence of chemicals called bases, and if any one base is out of sequence the protein may be dysfunctional—he often ends up talking about cops and robbers. “Our colleagues at the Genome Center in the United States tell us that there may be three billion base pairs in the entire genome and that there are one hundred twenty million base pairs in each of the chromosomes, and about two thousand to two hundred thousand base pairs in a gene, and what we are doing is looking for a single base pair that is different or out of sequence,” he told a group of sixty Dominican professors and students at the Universidad Technologica De Santiago, the day after his field researchers completed nine more interviews in the northern coastal city of Puerta Plata and four more that morning in Jicome. UTESA is the academic home of Dr. Martin Madrano, Mayeux’s chief collaborator in the DR, one of only thirteen gerontologists on an island with a population of nine million, and the person responsible for steering hundreds of Dominican Alzheimer patients and their families in Mayeux’s direction. Back in New York that role was played Dr. Rafael Lantigua, the deputy director of the Taub Institute and the medical director of Associates in Internal Medicine, a group practice run by Presbyterian Hospital for its neighbors in Washington Heights. Lantigua—who is short, dark, balding, and doesn’t appear to spend a lot of time at the gym--had traveled to the DR that morning with Mayeux—a tall, pale, curly-haired, zealously fit, former wide-receiver for Oklahoma State who likes to tell people that he and Lantigua are brothers separated at birth. The two men had sat shoulder to shoulder for hours by the hotel pool as Mayeux translated the lecture into Spanish and Lantigua coached him through sticky points like “if you use the word ‘relaciones’ you’re saying ‘making love.’” “So we’re looking for that one base pair, which is like having the police know that someone has committed a crime somewhere, but they don’t know where, and they have to start looking for him all over the universe,” Mayeux went on. “That’s basically where we are. The goal of genetic family studies is to try to get down to the earth, and then into the neighborhood, and eventually to find the culprit.” (Another time, trying to explain how the geneticist Peter Hyslop, who is not typically credited with finding the APP mutation, was crucial to its discovery, he said, “If I tell you the criminal is holed up in Hastings on Hudson, at least you have a good place to start looking. Peter Hyslop said APP was in Hastings, and Alison Goate and John Hardy said “Aha, it’s at 45 Main Street, and therefore it must be Mayeux.” Mayeux does live in Hastings, a Westchester suburb, with his wife, Nancy Green, a pediatric oncologist who is the medical director of the March of Dimes, and their two teenage daughters.) If mutations are the bad guys, and scientists are the good guys, then since the discovery of the presinillins and APOE4, the good guys had made something like a hundred false arrests. In peer-reviewed paper after paper, research teams all over the world claimed to have identified about one hundred unique genes that they claimed influenced or in some way triggered late-onset Alzheimer’s disease, but not one of those genes had been able to be replicated consistently by other researchers, if at all. “There are no more APOEs, so people have to lighten up,” said Harvard professor Rudy Tanzi, possibly the world’s most dogged Alzheimer gene researcher, and the author of a few of those papers himself. But as John Hardy saw it, “There’s a tendency for any individual lab chief to look so hard that he convinces himself that he’s found something and other people check and they can’t replicate it. People have not replicated some of our work, and we’ve not replicated anybody else’s work in these other genes. It’s been twelve years and nobody has found anything. It’s been a big deal.” There is one simple reason why no one has found a new Alzheimer’s gene in more than a decade, and another reason that is less simple, and they both come down to the same thing: statistics. Risk factor genes, the genes that will explain common, lateonset AD, are inherently elusive because carrying them does not automatically presage disease. More challenging, there may be a lot of risk genes—five or six, in Tanzi’s estimation, up to eight in Hyslop’s—each with a potentially minute effect. Risk genes, in other words, are quiet, and it will take a very sensitive microphone to hear them. In the case of Alzheimer’s, that microphone is a large family study like Mayeux’s, with reams of information over time about each individual’s health issues, eating habits, work and leisure pursuits, as well as genealogies that show the genetic path of AD. The big numbers pick up on small effects, and the detailed histories parse the sample. Mayeux’s thick books of pedigrees and database of dna allow researchers to define a person’s genotype—what genes she carries—as well as a phenotype—what traits she embodies-and then to subdivide the phenotype according to which traits very specifically correlate with the kind of dementia that characterizes Alzheimer’s disease. On the 19th floor of Columbia Presbyterian Hospital, the crucial distinction was coming down to a person’s performance on certain memory tests, and the researchers were seeing a pattern in performance and disease that they hoped would show up in the genes. “Age of onset is a wimpy phenotype,” Mayeux said to no one in particular at one of the team’s weekly genetics meetings last January. “Memory is better.” “Delayed recognition is the most sensitive test we have for AD,” Joe Lee, the geneticist, told him. “That and another test that I can’t recall. I may be a subject for this study soon myself.” “We all may be,” said Mayeux, laughing. (In fact, both Mayeux’s mother and aunt have Alzheimer’s Disease—he diagnosed them himself--and it is a measure of the prevalence of AD that so does Yaakov Stern’s father, who is a patient at the Memory Disorders Clinic, as did Vinny Santana’s grandmother. Santana realized she had the disease on one of his research trips to the Dominican Republic, when he knocked on her door to deliver groceries, put the first bag on her kitchen table, went out to the car for a second bag, found the door locked on his return, knocked, and was greeted by his grandmother—who had no recollection how the groceries had arrived in her house--as if he had been gone for months, not minutes. In Alzheimer’s Disease, short-term memory loss is the most obvious phenotype.) A few months after the genetics meeting I attended in January, a number of the same researchers who were at that meeting, plus Stern, Piriz and Estevez, were gathered in Mayeux’s office when Santana rolled in a cart piled three feet high with the two hundred interviews that the field researchers had completed in the weeks since their last diagnostic case conference. In the stack were the files of first-time participants from the Dominican Republic and follow-up examinations of subjects who had been seen on previous visits, as well of as their relatives in Washington Heights. The day before the meeting, which was about three weeks after their long day in Ginger Alley, Santana, Estevez and Piriz had finally interviewed Matias de Jesus Vargas’ sixty-year-old niece in her apartment a few blocks down Broadway from the hospital that offered the same view of the Hudson River and the bend of Manhattan that they would have been seeing from Mayeux’s office if their heads hadn’t been bowed over the case files like students cramming for an exam. Despite being diabetic and overweight, the niece had no memory complaints and no signs of impairment, even though diabetes itself is a risk factor for Alzheimer’s. Her case was one of the ones on the day’s docket. Santana, who was a college drop-out when he started working for Mayeux and is now a few credits shy of completing an MBA, dealt out score sheets—officially called “clinical core diagnosis”—that looked surprisingly like an IRS 1040 short form, with various sections and schedules and subtotals, all leading to a bottom line: did the participant have Alzheimer’s disease or not. To get there they had to rule out Parkinson’s disease, prion disease, alcohol dementia, dementia with Lewy Bodies, frontotemporal dementia and anything else that might mimic the symptoms of AD. They had exactly an hour for the meeting because this was Mayeux’s last day at Columbia for three months— though that last day turned out to be fungible—before he started a “mini-sabbatical” at Rockefeller University where he was going to study genetics. “We’ll just get through as many as we get through, and then get the data to Joe Lee so he can put it into the computer,” Mayeux said, pulling a dozen folders off the cart. “Here’s someone you saw,” he said waving a folder at Estevez, who was sitting next to him. “What was his blood pressure?” He looked at her intently, not letting on that he was pulling her leg—in fourteen days in the Dominican Republic the researchers had examined ninety-eight people, and there was no way that Estevez could possibly remember, nearly a month later, any individual’s vital signs. She looked at little stricken. As the newest member of the team, Estevez had not yet grown accustomed to Mayeux’s ability to tease, compliment and assert his authority all in the same sentence. “175 over 90,” she shot back. Mayeux looked stunned. “That’s amazing. How did you do that? Did you know or did you guess?” But there was no time for an answer, “Okay, what else do we know about this guy?” he asked. Accurately diagnosing a subject is crucial to looking for genes, and the design of Mayeux’s field studies, with their repeat visits every eighteen months, increased the odds that they would get it right. According to Peter Hyslop, who used Mayeux’s Dominican cell lines in his discovery of PS1, “the way most studies are done is that a person is seen once and diagnosed as either having Alzheimer’s Disease or not having Alzheimer’s Disease, and then not seen again. In the Washington Heights and Dominican studies, people are followed up again and again. There may be some individuals on the borderline when they were first seen, but when they were followed up later they had developed a clear case of Alzheimer’s, so you can be quite certain about the diagnosis. Conversely, there are people who are seen the first time who are normal, and if you follow them for years and they are still normal there is a much greater chance that they are really normal controls and not just pre-symptomatic carriers.” To refine their diagnostic powers, the Columbia group convened an autopsy meeting once a month to see how close their assessment of a person while alive was to the incontrovertible pathological truth. The meetings were run by Dr. Lawrence Honig, Dirctor of Clinical Care at the Alzheimer Disease Research Center, often to standing room only crowds. Honig would present a patient’s history and tentative diagnosis, then project slides of the brain, first whole, then in slices, stained in red and blue to show its dominant features. Then the doctors would decide, based on the one crucial piece of evidence they had been missing, if they had been right anyhow. I had skipped the August autopsy meeting, and a week later, when I stopped by Larry Honig’s office at the opposite end of PH 19 from Richard Mayeux’s, he showed me the slides of a woman whose case had been discussed that day, a case that illustrated how difficult it could be, even with years of data, to get a diagnosis absolutely right. Honig walked me through the women’s history: a clerical worker with a year of college, she had been first seen as a WHICAP participant in 1992 at the age of sixty-eight. At the time she was besieged by numerous ailments—cirrhosis, gallstones, pulmonary disease, carpel tunnel and facial palsy, among them—and, in addition, was a former smoker and recovered alcoholic. In later years she was found to carry the APOE4 gene, and an MRI showed some brain atrophy. She had done well on all her tests, though, the medical ones and the neuropsychological ones, and not just that first year, but at every interval until 2000, when there was a decline in some of her memory scores. Two years later there was a further decline in memory, and a spirited discussion among the clinicians whether or not to move the woman from the non-affected category to a diagnosis of early Alzheimer’s. The neurologists, led by Honig, were pretty sure, based on the fact that the woman’s test scores had been stable for over a decade, that her recent memory problems were the result of her multiple physical ailments. The neuropsychologists were sticking by their algorithm. Unable to agree, they left the diagnosis unchanged, waiting to see what would show up the next time around. But there was no next time. By late 2004, when the woman was scheduled to be seen again by the WHICAP researchers she was dying of congestive heart failure. Honig called up a couple of slides of the woman’s brain on his computer monitor. To my untrained eye the brain seemed pretty normal—there was nothing in the slices that looked like measles, which is how plaques show up when they’ve been stained, nor did the woman’s brain appear especially shrunken, as Alzheimer brains tend to be. “We couldn’t even find a single plaque,” Honig beamed. “There were no signs of AD. So I can crow that I was right. But we’re not always right, so we have to be modest.” Neurologists have spent the past hundred years waiting for pathologists to prove them right, since 1906 when Alois Alzheimer autopsied the brain of a fifty-one-year-old woman who was exhibiting the kinds of behavior that most of us now would reflexively call Alzheimer’s disease, and found it riddled with plaques and tangles. Still, pathologists had waited almost as long to find out if the plaques and tangles were actually meaningful—if they caused disease or were just an artifact of some other biological process. What were they to make of the people who died with all the pathological evidence of Alzheimer’s but were not demented? And how to account for the presence of both plaques and tangles? Were the plaques, which are made of amyloid beta, more important agents of disease than the tangles, which are composed of a protein called tau, or were the tangles the prime suspect, or were the two accomplices in fleecing memory? These questions consumed researchers for decades, often contentiously, and still do to an extent. But what Rudy Tanzi at Harvard called the debate between the “Baptists and the Tauists”—those who believed in the supremacy of beta amyloid and those who favored tau tangles as the primum mobile of forgetting—was becoming more civil all the time; the tauists were getting more research money, which in science is a show of respect, and no one was disputing the central role of beta amyloid in making an Alzheimer’s brain, especially a form of beta amyloid called a-beta 42 , though what the plaques were doing in that brain could still rouse a heated discussion. Oddly, the geneticists, who, as the scientific literature shows, have never shied away from a fight, were the inadvertent arbiter of these rows, for the answers were coming, not from the examination of slices of gross tissue, but from investigations at the molecular level, from the interrogation of genes. “I think the controversy is over, in a way,” said John Hardy, the geneticist who discovered the APP mutation and who now runs a lab at the National Institutes of Health. “Though maybe I’m delusional. But the fact is that if you have mutations in tau, you get a disease that causes tangles. If you have mutations in either amyloid or the presinillins you get Alzheimer’s disease, which, has both plaques and tangles. I think what that shows is something very simple, and that is that there is an order to the pathology. The analogy I use is a river: in Alzheimer’s disease you get on the Mississippi River near Duluth and you end up in New Orleans with plaques, tangles and dementia. In Picks disease, which is caused by mutations in tau, you get on the Mississippi River in St. Louis and you still end up in New Orleans, but with tangles and dementia. My view is that most people, very generally, agree with that. And that’s come out of the genetics.” “So much of the work that we’ve done, going forward, is asking ‘how do these genes cause disease?’ ‘What are the biological pathways involved?’ ‘What goes wrong?’” Rudy Tanzi, John Hardy’s antagonist on most matters but this one, observed the day we spoke. “What goes wrong is that you produce too much a-beta 42. “What was controversial was whether the plaques, where a-beta 42 eventually makes its home, are the cause of Alzheimer’s disease. And the answer is probably not. Plaques are not good because they cause inflammation and inflammation can make things worse. But the newest data says that we have to instead focus on the synapses. The main place where a-beta 42 does its work is in the synapse. So every minute of the day an Alzheimer patient is producing a-beta 42, for one reason or another, and it’s accumulating in the brain, and where it’s accumulating is in the synapse. And it’s not these big ropey fibrils that take years to form. Way, way before the plaques form you get tiny little aggregates of a-beta 42. The peptides stick together and they get into the synapse and they disrupt the most basic synaptic function for learning and memory. For all we know plaques may be a beneficial attempt by the brain to sequester a-beta away so you don’t have it in synapses any more. It’s the newly made a-beta 42 that is relentlessly attacking the synapses and probably this is why an Alzheimer patient has trouble remembering what happened five minutes ago. When you impair the synapse, when you cause it to not function properly, eventually it starts to break down. And eventually it goes away.” This point, exactly, was illustrated last fall in a short article in the journal Nature Neuroscience, though the piece was about mice, who don’t get Alzheimer’s disease unless they are genetically altered to develop plaques and tangles, which these mice were. The title of the paper, “Fibrillar Amyloid Deposition Leads to Local Synaptic Abnormalities and Breakages of Neuronal Branches,” was not exactly sensational, but the accompanying photographs—images of real mice brains in real time—were vivid, and chilling. In the pictures, dendrites and axons, the parts of a neuron that carry information to and from a cell, highlighted in a radiant shade of green, start out long and robust, encounter the amyloid (which shows up as tomato red) and wither. The maw of amyloid simply chews them up. One of the authors of that paper, Karen Duff, was also the “author” of one of the original transgenic Alzheimer mice. Duff, a precociously young geneticist who trained at Cambridge, worked closely with John Hardy, and developed the first mouse model of the presinillin mutation while a post-doc in his lab, continues to make mouse models of neurodegenerative diseases at the Nathan Kline Institute in Orangeburg, New York. NKI is about half an hour north of Manhattan, on the grounds of the Rockland Psychiatric Center, a state-run facility for the mentally ill. It, too, looks institutional, in a scrubbed, white-walled sort of way. Duff’s office, though, is cheerier, with a bobble-head doll of James Watson on the desk, a cuckoo clock on the wall, and a stuffed mouse toy perched on a bookshelf. The real mice were across the hall, where Duff, who recently received an eight million dollar grant to work on tangle diseases, was raising multiple generations of mice made to come down with something like Lou Gehrig’s disease. To model a human disease in a mouse Duff had to micro-inject select bits of human DNA into a mouse egg with a tiny needle. (“You’re going from the outside to the inside and sometimes the eggs burst.” ) The introduced DNA bonded with the mouse DNA and was passed along to offspring. The first mouse born with this engineered DNA was called the founder mouse. Breeding the founders produced the actual “models”-real, live mice--which were then used to observe the progression of a disease or to test theraputic interventions. With the Lou Gehrig mice, Duff was doing both. “When I was in school I wanted to study physics, but I couldn’t do the math,” Duff said as she picked up a paraplegic mouse and gently stroked its back. “Then, when I was sixteen I went to a lecture about genes and learned that you could change one thing in two million and have an effect on the whole organism and I said ‘that’s it.’ I wanted to make that one change and see what it did, what pathways were involved, and then go on to treat it. My post-doc was making transgenic mice. Making mice is very hard. You have to be very specific with what you’ve done. If I have a demented mouse that can’t get around a water maze, I have to know that that is because I changed one gene. “I’m happy with mice. I think mice are a lot harder to work with than flies or worms, and they are more accurate. They’re more like humans.” She ran her finger along the sick mouse’s spine, then laid it back into its cage. Though Duff had shifted her focus from making mice that mimicked human disease processes, to mice that allowed her to test drugs and therapies that had the potential to reverse or limit the progression of those diseases, she still supplied her old established mouse models to other researchers, including Mayeux’s group at Columbia. (Another feature of Mayeux’s public lectures was a movie clip of two mice negotiating a water maze. The healthy mouse needed two tries before it could consistently find its way to a submerged platform on the opposite side of the maze, where it could escape the cold water. Meanwhile, the demented mouse, a relative of Duff’s original transgenic “Alzheimer” mouse, could never remember where the platform was. In real--which is to say human--Alzheimer’s disease, a loss of orientation—an inability to negotiate a world of angles and depths and roads that may or may not lead to home—is one of the first observable cognitive deficiencies.) Mayeux, too, was one of the few researchers for whom Duff was still willing to create a whole new mouse model—once he had a whole new Alzheimer’s gene to give her. “It’s a symbiotic relationship,” Duff explained. “The geneticists want their findings to be more than a gene on a piece of paper. They want to look at its functionality, want to see it really does cause disease by putting it into animals. Richard needs me to put the genes in the animals, and I need someone like him to give me the genes to put into my animal models to see what they do. It’s a multi-part process. Finding the gene is just the first bit.” As tricky as finding this first bit had been, by the summer of 2004, six years into the Dominican genetics study, the Columbia team, working closely with Peter St. George Hyslop in Toronto, who was also collaborating with Dr. Lindsay Farrar at Boston University, was pretty sure they were closing in on it. Having hunted through the entire genome searching for places where shared patterns of DNA showed up in people with Alzheimer’s disease, having pored over thousands upon thousands of genes, some four spreadsheets long, they believed that they knew where the rogue gene resided and what it did. Hyslop and his Toronto group had pointed the way. They had been studying a promising gene that belonged to a family of genes called retromers that traffic proteins around a cell, and proposed that the three research groups look at all the members of the retromer family, which were scattered across ten different chromosomes. It was standard work for Joe Lee, and he began the genetic close-work, applying micro-satellite markers along the chromosomes at regular intervals and examining the space between them, looking for variations in the genetic code, called alleles, that segregated with the disease. “It’s like walking down the block between Broadway and 47th Street and Broadway and 48th, looking for a person with red hair,” Lee explained. “The micro-satellites are the street signs. “If more affected people tend to have certain alleles in a certain marker, then that’s a candidate we should be looking at more carefully. If the affected people in the family have the same allele, then that suggests that the disease gene must be close by. Microsatellites give you coarse resolution to find which areas are interesting and once you find the interesting part you go on to the next level of resolution, called snips, which are single neucleotide changes, which give you a bigger resolution. You want to find the snips that are really strongly associated, and then see if that single change in the neucleotide changes the protein, and if that protein change is meaningful. For example, in the case of AD, we try to see if it changes the level of beta amyloid.” While Hyslop’s group in Toronto examined the DNA of a few hundred people of European descent, and Farrar’s team looked at the genetics of sibling pairs—one with the disease, one without it—collected in the United States, Canada and Vancouver, Lee focused on the thousands of samples gathered from the Dominican Republic and Washington Heights studies. By sheer size alone, Mayeux’s genetic library, with its branching trees of large, extended families that often spanned two or more generations offered Lee great power to see which alleles were segregating with the disease. But the design and scope of the complementary Columbia studies, WHICAP in New York and the family genetics survey in the DR, also gave Lee another advantage: where the large families from the Dominican Republic enabled him to more easily find segregating alleles, the large numbers of Dominicans in the Washington Heights study allowed him to see if those alleles also showed up more generally in the Hispanic population. Meanwhile, as Lee and the researchers in Toronto and Boston systematically moved along the chromosomes—think of SWAT teams, going door-to-door--a funny thing happened. A clear association had appeared on the same gene in each population, but the alleles were different and isolated by race. The association for blacks was at one end of the gene, the association for whites was at the other, and the association for Hispanics was in the middle. Something else was in the middle, too, not far from the Hispanic allele, a hyperactive segment of DNA that seemed to defy the rules of cell division. Typically, genes that are close together on a chromosome are inherited together, while genes that are far from each other are not because they break up during reproduction and the fragments crossover and become something different and new. Geneticists rely on the number of crossovers to tell them how close a marker is to a disease gene. Generally, the rule is that if there are a lot of crossovers they are far from it, and if there are none, they are near. “It was a Saturday and I was looking at the data,” Mayeux recalled. “We couldn’t figure out why we couldn’t get an overlapping haplotype—alleles that are inherited together--across the ethnic groups. So I went to these big genomic databases that are in the public domain and looked at some of the markers that are publicly available and noticed there was a big gap between them. Why would adjacent markers not be inherited together?” What the three teams had hit upon, Mayeux suspected, was a recombination hotspot, where there was a lot of breaking and joining and statistically unpredictable crossovers of genetic material. “Joe Lee was away,” Mayeux continued, “so I asked Ron Chang, who works in our lab, to run a genetics sequence called Merlin, a statistical package that can show crossovers. Ron came back and said that in this segment there were way too many crossovers. Something like thirty-eight in a small, small segment. And there should be one. Or none.” Mayeux called Hyslop, who worried that they had made a geneotyping error, and suggested that the DNA be analyzed again. It took a month. The result was the same. They really were looking at a site of unpredictable genetic activity, a red-herring that had probably thrown-off previous researchers looking at the same gene. With so many crossovers, it never would have shown up on their analyses. The three lead scientists, Mayeux, Hyslop and Farrar, were growing more convinced that the gene they were looking at was one of the undiscovered late-onset riskfactor genes. The association was strong, and not just in one sample population, but five, and not in one racial group, but three, scattered around the globe. Each scientist had replicated the work of the others, and in their line of work replication was rare. By nature, the three admitted to being skeptics—Lindsay Farrar liked to refer to himself as Dr. No—but as the evidence mounted, their ability to explain it away deserted them. “The ‘aha!’ moment happens to different people at different times and sometimes it never really happens,” Hyslop said. “We are aware of little bits of data as they come out that say ‘yes, it’s real,’ but not very strongly, so what you get is not really a eureka moment, but something that is incremental. It starts out as “uh huh, but it’s probably a fluke,’ to ‘maybe it’s not a fluke,’ to ‘this could be real, let me see what I can do to make it go away,’ to ‘well, it seems pretty robust but there are still problems,’ to “we’ve taken this as far as we can and we concede that there are many things to be done on this story, but before we do too much more it needs to be put in the hands of some other people, with totally different data sets and totally different ways of analyzing things and see if they get the same results.’ “If we’re right about this gene, the next thing that will happen is that people will say ‘okay, how does this fit in the metabolic pathway? You want to find which other proteins it interacts with, whether you can make a drug that will affect that function, whether you can put it into animal models to make a transgenic mouse.” To get from the Taub Institute to the neurology mouse lab, you have to work your way down two sets of stairs, pass through a double set of security doors, climb other stairs, and turn a couple of corners until you end up in a long corridor of one of the upper floors of the medical school. On the morning I visited, Ken Hess, the lab technician, was just finishing taping a breathing mask over the snout of an inert black mouse; the mask was delivering anesthetic gas. Once the mouse was knocked out, Hess wrapped it in plastic and laid it on a tiny bed that fit into a long tube, and secured the mouse’s head with tape. The mouse did not stir. Then Hess inserted the tube into a machine that looked like a storage tank on a dairy farm but was actually a relatively petite magnetic resonance scanner made specifically to look inside the bodies of small animals. Hess turned to his computer. On the screen were images of the mouse’s brain, its beating heart. The mouse looked peaceful in there, unperturbed by the percussive, hydraulic noises issuing from the machine, noises that overwhelmed the room. The mouse nursery, where this mouse was raised and lived, was one flight up. There were white mice, black mice, wild mice, sick mice, genetically designed mice and, though I did not know it then, a mouse that would, many months later, support the finding that the particular gene on which Mayeux and his collaborators were closing in, influenced the development of late-onset Alzheimer’s disease. The mouse was transgenic, the descendant, many generations removed, of a founder mouse bred fourteen years earlier for a different set of experiments on retromer dysfuction. Mouse models are expensive to produce, and this one had been perpetuated for so many years with the idea that someone in the future might find its particular collection of disabilities, including memory deficits, to be of use. That someone was Scott Small, the Herbert Irving assistant professor of Neurology at Columbia who was still in medical school when the mice were being developed. Small was a nimble scientist, able to jump effortlessly between cell biology, physiology, electrical engineering and medicine. He was also a gifted clinician. I had been in the examining room when he diagnosed an eighty-six year old women with Alzheimer’s, a diagnosis that was more apparently devastating to her middle-aged son than it was to her, and watched him talk to the son with tremendous compassion, then slam his fist on the desk in anger as soon as the man and his mother were gone, furious— with the universe, with science, with himself--that the best he could offer were free samples of a drug that might help for a couple of months, if that. In the lab Small had distinguished himself by developing high resolution functional magnetic resonance imaging that let him see into specific regions of the brain at work. Pairing fMRI with a technique called microarray, which let him examine all the cells in that region to see which ones were contributing to disease, he had, independent of the genetics work Mayeux was doing with Hyslop and Farrar, hit upon the retromer complex as a pathway that lead to common, late-onset Alzheimer’s disease. As was typical when I went to talk to Small in his artfully under-furnished work space on the 18th floor of the hospital, it was not long before he had left his chair and stood at the large chalkboard that dominated one wall, drawing diagrams. On this day, which was in early August, he was trying to explain the retromer complex and how it contributed to Alzheimer’s. The picture he was drawing had a lot of what looked like Legos stacked top of each other, and a big circle in which there were four smaller circles, two on the right, two on the left. “God solved the problem of having different kinds of molecules that didn’t like each other by compartmentalizing the cells. The garbage disposal is separate from the refrigerator. You have a cell, which is the big circle, and you have different compartments called organelles, which are the small circles. Once there is separation, you need a way to take something from the refrigerator to the garbage disposal. That’s what the trafficking molecules do. They’re like a shuttle bus.” He drew a line from one organelle, the nucleus, to another, called the golgi, and then from the golgi out of the big circle altogether, and from there back to one of the smaller circles, the endosome, and from the endosome to the fourth circle, the lysosome. It was the Lego-stack, he explained, that escorted the molecule back inside the cell after it had breached the cell wall. It was called the “retromer” because it moved in reverse, and “complex” because it contained a number of different molecules. One of those molecules, it turned out, was the gene that had showed up so convincingly in Mayeux, Hyslop and Farrar’s data. Until that gene appeared in the microarray analysis Small had done of cells taken from people who had died of late-onset AD, he said, he had never heard of it before. “So how does this tie into Alzheimer’s disease?” Small said. “If you cause retromer dysfunction, you prevent the cargo from being removed. We think the cargo is the amyloid precursor protein, APP--which would account for there being too much amyloid in the brain. If our model is right we’ve uncovered something completely novel that contributes to late-onset Alzheimer’s which, since finding APOE4 no one else has done. All the other findings were genes that might have affected AD, but they are not actually primary to the disease process. What we’ve found is primary to the disease process. We’ve shown it in a Petri dish—when we turn down the retromer gene the level of beta amyloid goes up--and now we’re working with the mouse, and the results look very promising. I can’t say more than that right now.” For months as I ducked in and out of Richard Mayeux’s office, the name of the promising new gene was written on the whiteboard near the door, but I had no idea that the word I was seeing was the gene we were talking about since no one would utter its name in my presence. There was some concern that if I knew it I might inadvertently tip off another research group, which could claim the finding as theirs. In science there is only one winner, Karen Duff had said in the spring, describing how, during the race to make the first presinillin mouse, she was afraid to spare the time to get her broken arm set, for fear than she would lose too much ground to her competitors. And then there were the cautionary words of Scott Small when he finished explaining the retromer complex: “If tomorrow someone publishes the whole story I just told you,” he said, “I can cry till I’m blue in the face but they will have published first.” It was only at the end of the summer, when I was sitting with Mayeux in a small cabin on a lake in the Adirondacks where he was vacationing with his wife, relaxing by taking forty and fifty mile bike rides, that he said the name, and I realized that it had been in front me for half the year. There was also a matter of protocol. As real as a finding might seem in a lab, it had to debut in a peer-reviewed scientific journal before it was accepted as real science. Announcing it first in the popular press could queer that. For the longest time I didn’t want to know the name of the gene, did not want to possess the ability to compromise Mayeux’s work and the work of his collaborators. And the name seemed beside the point, anyway. Names of genes are hardly descriptive—does UBQLN1 (Tanzi’s most recent candidate gene) mean anything to you? More important is what the genes do, and how they do it, and if they offer scientists a way to circumvent or override the disease process. “Five years,” Peter Hyslop told me when I asked when the first treatment for Alzheimer’s disease, based on the genetics, would be available. “Five years,” said Karen Duff. “Five years,” said Rudy Tanzi. All are actively working on novel, geneticallybased, Alzheimer therapies. And at Columbia, at the end of August, Larry Honig was looking to sign up the first patient willing to participate in a clinical trial testing a method of immunizing the body to produce antibodies that, in animals at least, reduced the number of amyloid plaques in the brain. “Ten years from now you’ll go to your doctor and she will look at your gene profile and say ‘you know, you have three high risk genes for Alzheimer’s disease and I would strongly suggest that when you turn fifty you get the Alzheimer’s vaccine,” Mayeux said that day in the Adirondacks. “Right now you don’t know what the hell to do. You don’t know whether you should take vitamins, whether you should take ibuprofen, and if you do if you’ll get a stroke, whether you should take estrogen, and if that will give you a stroke. People tell you to use your brain, to use your body, and those are all well and good but you don’t know if it’s a lifetime of doing those things, you don’t know if it’s starting to do crosswords when you’re ninety. If we can solve some of these genetic puzzles, we’ll know how to treat the disease.” It was, by then, three years since he, Hyslop, and Farrar, had begun their active collaboration, and despite their successes—the statistically significant association of the same gene in five independent Alzheimer populations and the functional studies that showed that when the gene was knocked out of a cell more beta amyloid was produced— Mayeux remained circumspect. There was still more work to be done: having found the gene they now had to find the mutation, and they had to show how the mutation influenced the course of the disease. It might be another few months of hard labor at the very least before they could go public. “Let’s say this is a real finding,” he said, avoiding the presumption of a declarative sentence. “You can bet there will be a ton of work on how this particular gene fits into the big picture. It’s really a jigsaw puzzle with 500 pieces. You can look at it and see some of the key pieces and you can tell that there is a brain on a brown background, but you can’t figure out where all the other pieces go. But then you get one piece in there that fits and it helps you get a whole section together. “We think we got a piece—it may be more—but you don’t know till you nail it. What I feel best about is that the collections I’m making are going to be around for a while. Collecting these Dominican families, putting the data together, having them very well characterized, having the cell lines—if it’s not us who finds the gene, then someone will find the genetic variant eventually and that will help. “It’s a lot like the movie The Maltese Falcon. You look for, you look for, you look for, and you find something--and then you realize it’s not the right thing, and by that evening you’re booked on another ship to begin the next search. If this fizzles out, we’ll be booked on that boat.”