Category Archives: Human Genetic Engineering

Here we will look at how the mRNA sequences for pfizer and modernas COVID'-19 injection can cause problems with the human gene Line-1.

Primer on Line-1 Current till 2022

First lets look at the code of Line-1:

Line-1 Accession: L19088.1

(Sequence taken from the national library of medicine - where you can find multiple versions and fragments of LINE-1. I picked the longest version, as thats least likely to have missing parts that were cropped during isolation of the gene. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/?term=Human+LINE1)

Id paste the whole thing but the part were interested is at the end.

6001 isnt the year yet, its the base pair number. (Each group is 10 base pairs, except the last batch in this cut and paste which is 9.) The start of the gene is base pair 1, and it goes all the way to base pair 6059 for the gene Line-1. (A group of 3 base pairs forms a codon which can code for an amino acid. Chain a bunch of amino acids together and voila! A protein!)

So whats so particular about the end of Line-1?

We have 37 a s in a row. Why is that important? Because the moderna and pfizer mRNA injections for COVID have something very similar.

(a stands for adenine in DNA. t stands for thymine, g is guanine, and c is cytosine For a short explanation of DNA and RNA please check out Dr. Syed Haiders substack where one of my dear readers found the article that I needed to complete this one:)

Dr. Syed Haider

If I had finished this article earlier, I would have been missing this key piece, so thank you College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, for delaying my article but making it better in the process!

Fight with Medical College Lawyers

So back to the Human Gene Line-1, it makes up 17-20% of the Human Genome.

Now if we look at Modernas sequence here:

Moderna Covid-19 mRNA (Elasomeran)

And then Pfizers mRNA for COVID-19:

Pfizer Sequence - BNT-162B2

70 a s preceeded by gcauaugac. (u in the moderna and pfizer isnt true uracil - a nucleotide component that makes up RNA. It is methyl pseudo uracil, an artificial modified version made to prevent cells from destroying the spike protein mRNA.)

Well if either the pfizer or moderna versions of the spike protein mRNA are reverse transcribed, then that long chain of a s will turn into a long chain of t s that would base pair (attach) to any gene with a long tail of a s like Line-1.

AND theres many copies of Line-1 throughout the human genome.

So 17-20% of the human genome could be targeted because pfizer and moderna put a long tail of a s on the ends of their mRNA?

Thats exactly what I was thinking

Well, I wasnt quite sure. I had my suspicions, but no scientific article that could quite make those suspicions suspiciously suspect. Thats when the study found by one of my readers in Dr. Sayed Haiders substack baked the cake.

Line-1 and Poly-a

Now thanks to this fresh study by Rudolf Jaenisch and Liguo Zhang, I had evidence the proteins made by the Line-1 gene had an affinity for Poly-a that is the long chains of a s, coincidentally also found in Modernas and Pfizers COVID mRNA injections. These Poly-as are also in the Line-1 gene itself. When a Line-1 mRNA with a long Poly-a is in the cytoplasm (outside the nucleus) the L1ORF2p proteins made by Line-1 preferentially bind to the poly-A stretch at the end of the LINE1 mRNA, AND CARRY IT INTO THE NUCLEUS!

Because what happens if L1ORF2p proteins that bind to the Poly-a stick to the long stretch of a 's in the Pfizer and Moderna Spike Protein mRNA?

AND THEN CARRY THAT INTO THE NUCLEUS?!?

OMFG

The Pfizer and Moderna spike protein mRNAs already resist breakdown within the cytoplasm because of their engineered 5 Cap and their Methyl pseudo uracil nucleotides resist exonucleases. They already live longer than natural mRNAs.

Now theres a mechanism (Line-1 ORF1 and ORF2 proteins) to take them into the nucleus?

AND that mechanism has a reverse transcriptase AND an endonuclease to insert it into DNA?

Accidental Engineering?

Geoengineering?

or

Genetic Engineering.

Theres a Discrepancy! (in the study)

In the February 13th article about Line-1 and Poly-a, they find that the SARS-CoV-2 virus likes to make Poly-a tails as well. They found the virus had Poly-a tails on its Nucleocapsid mRNA and that it integrated into the DNA of cells infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Then they did another experiment where they took just the mRNA for the nucleocapsid and transfected it into cells. They didnt use the whole virus as would be the case in an infection. What they found was transfection did not result in DNA integration of viral genes. (Insertion of virus genes into the DNA)

Transfection is what happens when you take Pfizer or Modernas COVID-19 injection! Lipid nanoparticles transfect your cells with Spike protein mRNA. They dont infect your cells with SARS-CoV-2 like youd get from standing too close to someone without a maskright? (So this experiment showed that a transfection like getting an mRNA injection didnt alter DNA right?)

Not quite

NOT

This studys authors dont go into how long the Poly-as are in a virus infection, but the original Wuhan strain it looks like it has a 33 base pair Poly-a tail.

SARS-CoV-2 Genome (Original Wuhan)

They came to the conclusion that transfection didnt cause viral genes to get integrated into a cells DNA whereas an infection with SARS-CoV-2 did?

Are they trying to say the virus changes the DNA more than a transfection vaccine using mRNA?

But the Poly-a tail they used in their transfection experiment was 25% SHORTER than the Poly-a tail in the SARS-CoV-2 virus experiment!

Whats even worse is that the transfection Poly-a tail is 32% shorter than Line-1s natural Poly-a tail, and 75% shorter than the Pfizer Spike Protein Poly-a tail.

What is wrong with them?

Arent they comparing Apples to Bicycles?

Why do an OK experiment, when for the same amount of time and nucleotide you could do a TITANIC experiment?

Forget about nucleocapsid protein. Forget about someones donated pUC57-2019-ncov plasmid, a kind gift from Christine A. Roden from the Amy S. Gladfelter laboratory (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill).

GO TO A VACCINE CLINIC AND BORROW SOME Pfizer and Moderna mRNA!

You know the ones with 100 base pair and 70 base pair Poly-a TAILS?

What are they afraid of?

Growing spike proteins in a dish?

They know how to wear gloves right?

They know how to work under a biohazard hood right?

It does not make sense to do a pancake mix experiment when for the same time and $ they could have done the Pompeii of all experiments.

Discrepancy Analysis (Heuristics)

The clue. The very suspicious clue is the name of one of the studys authors, Rudolf Jaenisch.

I dont know the guy. Ive never met him. Im thinking hes a great guy who knows a thing or two about cell biology.

So why the suspicion?

Do I think a serious cell biologist like him is afraid of spike proteins?

Not really. I think Rudolf Jaenisch might be afraid of a different kind of spike. The kind of lead spike thats attached to a brass casing with flammable powder.

Let me explain.

The only reason I know the name Rudolf Jaenisch is because Dr. Robert Malone trash talked him during an interview I did in November 2021.

Watch the video:

9:45 Dr. Malone: "I work closely with government."

10:43 Dr. Malone: "I was alerted by a CIA officer..."

40:30 Dr. Nagase: Backstory.

45:30 Dr. Nagase: Cancer and reverse transcriptase

47:03 Dr. Malone: drops off call

57.53 Dr. Malone: comes back cautioning against speculating about reverse transcriptase.

58:30 Dr. Malone: "We're under intense pressure... we have to be super careful about our messenging and what we're stating...not useful to speculate about things like integration (of DNA from reverse transcribed RNA)

59:26 Malone: "I really think one does need to be a little cautious about interpreting some of these papers like the PNAS paper regarding reverse transcriptase by Rudy Jaenisch, WHO HAS A MULTI DECADE HISTORY OF OVER INTERPRETING RETRO VIROLOGY AND PUBLISHING IRREPRODUCIBLE FINDINGS. So that's my parting gentle comment is that we do have to be really careful not to provide opportunities for our haters to attack us."

Malone trashing Rudy Jaenisch

Why is the inventor of mRNA technology trashing another cell biologist?

Dr. Malone:

Works closely with government?

Was alerted by a CIA officer about Wuhan?

Trash Talks his Cell Biology buddy Rudolf Jaenisch?

Maybe Rudolf Jaenisch could have done the experiment with the COVID mRNA injections instead of donated nucleocapsid RNA. (Maybe he did do the same experiment with Pfizer and Moderna)

But to save his life, and not end up like JFK, he didnt publish it.

Post Script: If it indeed was the case that Spike protein mRNA was deliberately gene edited into people, theoretically it would be possible to do the reverse. That is gene edit it out of people. The question then would be what do we gene edit it out with?

My first idea was use Line-1 itself to Edit Out spike protein genes. But Line-1 itself isnt 100% benign, as it has been thought to have a role sometimes in cancers. However, an extra copy of natural Line-1 might be better than an unnatural copy of "spike protein.

Post Post Script: You can hear Dr. Malone in the back ground at 1:23 trying to talk over Dr. Weismann because hes getting into Uncomfortable territory. (fyi, Dr. Weismann is way smarter than me.)

Dr. Weismann vs Dr. Malone at 1:23

Read more here:
Genetic Engineering with Dr. Nagase - by Daniel Nagase MD

Genetic engineering, also called gene editing or genetic modification, is the process of altering an organism's DNA in order to change a trait. This can mean changing a single base pair, adding or deleting a single gene, or changing an even larger strand of DNA. Using genetic engineering, genes from one organism can be added to the genome of a completely different species. It is even possible to experiment with synthesizing and inserting novel genes in the hopes of creating new traits.

Many products and therapies have already been developed using genetic engineering. For example, crops with higher nutritional value, improved taste, or resistance to pests have been engineered by adding genes from one plant species into another. Similarly, expression of a human gene in yeast and bacteria allows pharmaceutical companies to produce insulin to treat diabetic patients. In 2020, scientists had their first successful human trial with CRISPR (a genetic engineering technique), to correct a mutant gene that causes sickle cell anemia, a painful and sometimes deadly blood disease.

There are many different genetic engineering techniques, including molecular cloning and CRISPR, and new techniques are being developed rapidly. Despite this variety, all genetic engineering projects involve carrying out four main steps:

Learn more about genetic engineering, and even try your hand at it, with these resources.

Measure Static Electricity With An Electroscope!

How to Make Paper Circuits

Build a light following robot

Original post:
Genetic Engineering Science Projects - Science Buddies

When you have a question, its always best to turn to a subject matter expert for answers. In our blog series, Ask An Expert, National University staff and faculty members take turns answering challenging questions in their areas of expertise. This time we ask psychology professor, Dr. Brenda Shook, Is human behavior genetic or learned?

Nature vs. nurture. Its an age-old debate: Do we inherit our behaviors, or do we learn them? Are our habits hereditary, or did we pick them up along the way?

If you were to ask Dr. Brenda Shook, psychology professor, and academic program director at National University, Is human behavior genetic or learned? shed reply: Thats the wrong question to ask.

Shook says the question we should be asking is, To what extent is a particular behavior genetic or learned?

Its pretty clear that physical traits like the color of our eyes are inherited, but behavior is more complicated. Shook says, Its a complex interaction between genetics and environment.

Shook uses singing as an example. Someone could be an excellent singer, but is that talent genetic or what it learned? Its both, she says. Maybe this person doesnt necessarily have a good singing voice, but her brain is wired to be able to learn and remember. So her genetics might have made voice lessons more effective.

Diving a little deeper into the biological realm, she explains that we dont inherit behavior or personality, but rather we inherit genes. And these genes contain information that produces proteins which can form in many combinations, all affecting our behavior. Even with this DNA, Shook says of the outcome, and it still could depend on the environment: what will turn on and off a gene?

Shook said theres a growing interest in how, when, and why some genes activate, and some dont. She refers to this area of research as epigenetics.

The American Psychological Association defines epigenetics as the study of how variation in inherited traits can originate through means other than variations in DNA. Psychology Today contributor Darcia F. Narvaez puts it into simpler terms: In other words, the lived experience of an individual can influence their gene behavior.

Epigenetics involves looking at the epigenome, which scientists describe as a layer of chemical tags wrapped around our protein-covered DNA. The epigenome marks can influence the physical structure of the genome, which in turn can dictate which genes are active or inactive. While our DNA code doesnt change, the epigenome can. Specific tags can react to outside influences, which can adjust how the body reads that gene.

Shook says one of the most compelling reasons for studying epigenetics is cancer research. With a greater understanding of the epigenome, could we one day alter genes to prevent disease? This possibility is stirring excitement in the medical community; however, it has also brought up ethical concerns. Still, epigenetics is probably the most relevant places to which we can look for answers to questions like: Is human behavior genetic or learned?

(If youre fascinated by this topic, you might also like our article, Can human behavior be studied scientifically?

Some people take their curiosity about human behavior in a more scientific direction, such as a career in academic, scientific, or medical research. Typically, though, people are interested in the study of human behavior as it pertains to everyday life. Graduate online degree programs in this subject area appeal to people in a wide range of professions and positions, from sales managers and marketing analysts to human resource directors and law enforcement officers. An understanding of human behavior is beneficial in the workplace in many ways. Not only can it help people perform their current duties better, but also it could help someone advance into a management or supervisory role.

Studies in human behavior, such as in Nationals Master of Arts in Human Behavior Psychology, will cover topics such as:

While human behavior studies are often associated with psychology, other fields also explore the human condition: sociology, anthropology, communication, and criminology. Some masters programs, such as Nationals, allow you to take electives in these areas. The study of human behavior at the graduate level can also serve as a foundation for related Ph.D. programs.

While not everyone who studies human behavior goes to the molecular level, the research will continue to inform the field. And theres a lot more to discover.

Just when we start to figure something out, something else comes along, Shook says.

Perhaps not having a solid answer to Is human behavior genetic or learned? is what makes the field so enticing.

If you or your current or desired career could benefit from a broader understanding of what makes people who they are, explore Nationals social sciences and psychology degree programs, with many available online.

About our Expert: Dr. Brenda Shook is an associate professor and academic director for the bachelor of arts in psychology program at National University. She has a masters degree in psychology, with a specialization in psychophysics, from California State University, Stanislaus. Shook earned a Ph.D. in psychology, with a specialization in biological psychology and neuroscience, from Brandeis University, and then completed six years of postdoctoral training: two years at UC Davis and four years at UCLA. At UC Davis, she studied prenatal brain development, and at UCLAs medical school she studied postnatal brain development, brain plasticity, and neurophysiology.

Prior to joining the faculty at National, Shook taught at Mount Saint Marys College, where she also served as chair of the department of psychology.

More here:
Is Human Behavior Genetic or Learned? | National University

Most recombinant DNA technology involves the insertion of foreign genes into the plasmids of common laboratory strains of bacteria. Plasmids are small rings of DNA; they are not part of the bacteriums chromosome (the main repository of the organisms genetic information). Nonetheless, they are capable of directing protein synthesis, and, like chromosomal DNA, they are reproduced and passed on to the bacteriums progeny. Thus, by incorporating foreign DNA (for example, a mammalian gene) into a bacterium, researchers can obtain an almost limitless number of copies of the inserted gene. Furthermore, if the inserted gene is operative (i.e., if it directs protein synthesis), the modified bacterium will produce the protein specified by the foreign DNA.

A subsequent generation of genetic engineering techniques that emerged in the early 21st century centred on gene editing. Gene editing, based on a technology known as CRISPR-Cas9, allows researchers to customize a living organisms genetic sequence by making very specific changes to its DNA. Gene editing has a wide array of applications, being used for the genetic modification of crop plants and livestock and of laboratory model organisms (e.g., mice).

The correction of genetic errors associated with disease in animals suggests that gene editing has potential applications in gene therapy for humans. Gene therapy is the introduction of a normal gene into an individuals genome in order to repair a mutation that causes a genetic disease. When a normal gene is inserted into a mutant nucleus, it most likely will integrate into a chromosomal site different from the defective allele; although this may repair the mutation, a new mutation may result if the normal gene integrates into another functional gene. If the normal gene replaces the mutant allele, there is a chance that the transformed cells will proliferate and produce enough normal gene product for the entire body to be restored to the undiseased phenotype.

Genetic engineering has advanced the understanding of many theoretical and practical aspects of gene function and organization. Through recombinant DNA techniques, bacteria have been created that are capable of synthesizing human insulin, human growth hormone, alpha interferon, a hepatitis B vaccine, and other medically useful substances. Plants may be genetically adjusted to enable them to fix nitrogen, and genetic diseases can possibly be corrected by replacing dysfunctional genes with normally functioning genes.

Genes for toxins that kill insects have been introduced in several species of plants, including corn and cotton. Bacterial genes that confer resistance to herbicides also have been introduced into crop plants. Other attempts at the genetic engineering of plants have aimed at improving the nutritional value of the plant.

In 1980 the new microorganisms created by recombinant DNA research were deemed patentable, and in 1986 the U.S. Department of Agriculture approved the sale of the first living genetically altered organisma virus, used as a pseudorabies vaccine, from which a single gene had been cut. Since then several hundred patents have been awarded for genetically altered bacteria and plants. Patents on genetically engineered and genetically modified organisms, particularly crops and other foods, however, were a contentious issue, and they remained so into the first part of the 21st century.

Special concern has been focused on genetic engineering for fear that it might result in the introduction of unfavourable and possibly dangerous traits into microorganisms that were previously free of theme.g., resistance to antibiotics, production of toxins, or a tendency to cause disease. Indeed, possibilities for misuse of genetic engineering were vast. In particular, there was significant concern about genetically modified organisms, especially modified crops, and their impacts on human and environmental health. For example, genetic manipulation may potentially alter the allergenic properties of crops. In addition, whether some genetically modified crops, such as golden rice, deliver on the promise of improved health benefits was also unclear. The release of genetically modified mosquitoes and other modified organisms into the environment also raised concerns.

In the 21st century, significant progress in the development of gene-editing tools brought new urgency to long-standing discussions about the ethical and social implications surrounding the genetic engineering of humans. The application of gene editing in humans raised significant ethical concerns, particularly regarding its potential use to alter traits such as intelligence and beauty. More practically, some researchers attempted to use gene editing to alter genes in human sperm, which would enable the edited genes to be passed on to subsequent generations, while others sought to alter genes that increase the risk of certain types of cancer, with the aim of reducing cancer risk in offspring. The impacts of gene editing on human genetics, however, were unknown, and regulations to guide its use were largely lacking.

Visit link:
genetic engineering - Process and techniques | Britannica

by Allison Bakerfigures by Lillian Horin

The Arctic apple is the juiciest newcomer to produce aisles. It has the special ability to resist browning after being cut (Figure 1), which protects its flavor and nutritional value. Browning also contributes to food waste by causing unappealing bruising on perfectly edible apples. Food waste, especially for fruits and vegetables, is a major problem worldwide; nearly half of the produce thats grown in the United States is thrown away, and the UK supermarket Tesco estimates that consumer behavior significantly contributes to the 40% of its apples that are wasted. Therefore, Arctic apples not only make convenient snacks, but they also might be able to mitigate a major source of food waste.

While a non-browning apple sounds great, how exactly was this achieved? Arctic apples are genetically engineered (GE) to prevent browning. This means that the genetic material that dictates how the apple tree grows and develops was altered using biotechnology tools. But before learning about the modern science used to make Arctic apples, lets explore how traditional apple varieties are grown.

Harvesting tasty apples is more complicated than simply planting a seed in the ground and waiting for a tree to grow. In particular, its difficult to predict what an apple grown from a seed will look and taste like because each seed contains a combination of genetic material from its parents. But farmers can reliably grow orchards of tasty apples by using an ancient technique called grafting. After a tree that produces a desirable apple is chosen, cuttings of that original tree are grafted, or fused, onto the already-established roots of a donor tree, called rootstock. The cuttings then grow into a full-sized tree that contains the exact same genetic material as the original tree. As a result, each tree of a specific apple variety is a cloned descendant of the original tree, and thus produce very similar apples.

New apple varieties emerge when genetic changes are allowed to occur. Traditionally, new apples are produced by cross-breeding existing apple varieties. This reshuffles the genetic makeup of seeds, which are then planted to see if they grow into trees that produce delicious new apples. On the other hand, Arctic apples are created by making a targeted change to the genetic material of an existing variety (more on this later). The advantage of using genetic engineering over traditional breeding methods is that scientists can efficiently make precise improvements to already-beloved apple varietiesin contrast, traditional cross-breeding is much more random and difficult to control.

Insight into the molecular causes of apple browning guided the genetic alteration that made Arctic apples. Apples naturally contain chemicals known as polyphenols that can react with oxygen in the air to cause browning. This reaction wont occur, however, without the help of polyphenol oxidase (PPO) enzymes, which bring polyphenols and oxygen together in just the right way. PPO enzymes and polyphenols are normally separated into different compartments in apple cells, which is why the inside of a fresh apple is white or slightly yellow-green in color. But these structures are broken when the fruit is cut or crushed, allowing PPOs to interact with polyphenols and oxygen to drive the browning reaction(Figure 2). This process occurs in all apples, but some varieties are less susceptible than others due to factors like lower amounts of PPOs or polyphenols. Common household tricks can also delay browning by a few hours by interfering with the PPO reaction, but no method prevents it completely or indefinitely. Knowing that PPOs were responsible for browning, researchers thought about blocking the production of these enzymes with genetic tools to create non-browning apples.

Genetic material is stored in our DNA and divided into functional units called genes. The genes are read by copying the DNA sequence into a related molecule called RNA. The RNA copy functions as a blueprint that instructs the cell how to build the product for that gene, which is called a protein. The production of PPO enzymes, therefore, can be blocked by simply removing their RNA blueprints. To do so, researchers used a tool from molecular biology called RNA interference (RNAi). RNAi is a natural biological process that recognizes and destroys specific RNA structures. Biologists can use RNAi to lower PPO levels by introducing RNA sequences that cause the degradation of PPO RNA. Using this technique, researchers developed an anti-PPO gene that makes anti-PPO RNA, which destroys the PPO RNA before it can be used to make PPO enzymes.

Once scientists created the anti-PPO gene, they needed to safely introduce it into the apple genome. To make a variety called the Arctic Golden, researchers began with Golden Delicious apple buds and inserted an engineered piece of genetic material called a transgene that contained the anti-PPO gene. After confirming that the plant received the transgene, the saplings were then allowed to grow into mature trees, one of which produced the apple that is now known as the Arctic Golden.

After over a decade of research, regulatory agencies in the United States and Canada like the FDA and USDA recently approved Arctic apples for human consumption. Accumulated evidence shows that Arctic apple trees and fruit are no different from their traditional counterparts in terms of agricultural and nutritional characteristics. On the molecular level, the transgene genetic material present in Arctic apples is quickly degraded by your digestive system to the point where its indistinguishable from that found in traditional apples. The only new protein in Arctic apple treesa protein called NPTII thats used to confirm that the genetic engineering was successfulwas not only undetectable in their apples, but it has also been evaluated and deemed nontoxic and non-allergenic by the FDA.

Yet some anti-GMO groups continue to protest the approval of Arctic apples, arguing that unforeseen consequences of the genetic alteration could impact safety. Its true that its impossible to predict and disprove every possible consequence of a genetic change. But a recent review by the National Academies of Science that covers decades of published research found no convincing evidence that GE crops have negatively impacted human health or the environment. While its important to rigorously test all new crops that are developed, GE crops should not be considered inherently more dangerous than their traditionally-bred relatives.

So whats next for the Arctic apple? It takes several years for new apple trees to grow and literally bear fruit, so itll take time for non-browning apples to expand to supermarkets throughout the US. Currently, Arctic Goldens are only available in bags of pre-sliced apples in select US cities, but Arctic versions of Granny Smith and Fuji apples have received USDA approval, and Arctic Galas are in development. If commercially successful, non-browning apples could help to combat rampant food waste one slice at a time.

Allison Baker is a second-year Ph.D. student in Biological and Biomedical Sciences at Harvard University.

Cover image credit:Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc.

More:
Arctic Apples: A fresh new take on genetic engineering

Overview Osteoarthritis vs. rheumatoid arthritis Open pop-up dialog box

Close

Osteoarthritis, the most common form of arthritis, involves the wearing away of the cartilage that caps the bones in your joints. Rheumatoid arthritis is a disease in which the immune system attacks the joints, beginning with the lining of joints.

Arthritis is the swelling and tenderness of one or more joints. The main symptoms of arthritis are joint pain and stiffness, which typically worsen with age. The most common types of arthritis are osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.

Osteoarthritis causes cartilage the hard, slippery tissue that covers the ends of bones where they form a joint to break down. Rheumatoid arthritis is a disease in which the immune system attacks the joints, beginning with the lining of joints.

Uric acid crystals, which form when there's too much uric acid in your blood, can cause gout. Infections or underlying disease, such as psoriasis or lupus, can cause other types of arthritis.

Treatments vary depending on the type of arthritis. The main goals of arthritis treatments are to reduce symptoms and improve quality of life.

The most common signs and symptoms of arthritis involve the joints. Depending on the type of arthritis, signs and symptoms may include:

Sign up for free, and stay up to date on research advancements, health tips and current health topics, like COVID-19, plus expertise on managing health.

To provide you with the most relevant and helpful information, and understand which information is beneficial, we may combine your email and website usage information with other information we have about you. If you are a Mayo Clinic patient, this could include protected health information. If we combine this information with your protected health information, we will treat all of that information as protected health information and will only use or disclose that information as set forth in our notice of privacy practices. You may opt-out of email communications at any time by clicking on the unsubscribe link in the e-mail.

Subscribe!

You'll soon start receiving the latest Mayo Clinic health information you requested in your inbox.

Please, try again in a couple of minutes

Retry

The two main types of arthritis osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis damage joints in different ways.

The most common type of arthritis, osteoarthritis involves wear-and-tear damage to a joint's cartilage the hard, slick coating on the ends of bones where they form a joint. Cartilage cushions the ends of the bones and allows nearly frictionless joint motion, but enough damage can result in bone grinding directly on bone, which causes pain and restricted movement. This wear and tear can occur over many years, or it can be hastened by a joint injury or infection.

Osteoarthritis also causes changes in the bones and deterioration of the connective tissues that attach muscle to bone and hold the joint together. If cartilage in a joint is severely damaged, the joint lining may become inflamed and swollen.

In rheumatoid arthritis, the body's immune system attacks the lining of the joint capsule, a tough membrane that encloses all the joint parts. This lining (synovial membrane) becomes inflamed and swollen. The disease process can eventually destroy cartilage and bone within the joint.

Risk factors for arthritis include:

Severe arthritis, particularly if it affects your hands or arms, can make it difficult for you to do daily tasks. Arthritis of weight-bearing joints can keep you from walking comfortably or sitting up straight. In some cases, joints may gradually lose their alignment and shape.

Sept. 15, 2021

Continued here:
Arthritis - Symptoms and causes - Mayo Clinic