Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Tumor Suppression Gene Discovered

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Mon Jan 23, 2006 12:29 AM
from the come-see-the-violence-inherent-in-the-system dept.
Science News
An anonymous reader writes ScieceDaily is reporting that researchers at Ohio State University may have identified a new and unusual tumor suppression gene that could effect cancers of the lung, head, and neck. From the article: "The gene, known as TCF21, is silenced in tumor cells through a chemical change known as DNA methylation, a process that is potentially reversible. The findings might therefore lead to new strategies for the treatment and early detection of lung cancer, a disease that killed an estimated 163,510 Americans in 2005. The study could also lead to a better understanding of the molecular changes that occur in tumor cells during lung-cancer progression."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Tumor Suppression Gene Discovered 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Grammar Nazi Alert (Score:4, Funny)

    by Da Stylin' Rastan (771797) on Monday January 23 2006, @12:31AM (#14536622)
    that could effect cancers of the lung, head, and neck.

    it'd be even better if it could affect them too.

  • Effect (Score:4, Insightful)

    by HermanAB (661181) on Monday January 23 2006, @12:31AM (#14536624)
    Gee, why would anyone want to effect cancer? I would think there are enough carcinogens out there to effect cancer already.


    • Basically, the best way to create new jobs is to create problems that can be solved by new jobs. Bill Clinton proposed creating new jobs to fix the environment, someone else created the 'Lets Hate America' which is being solved by jobs at Halliburton and the U.S. Army, and paid for by the taxpayers. Similarly, you f**c up human genes through radioactive experiments, and then you create a new industry to solve that problem. I'm only half kidding ;)

  • Fix Lung Cancer? (Score:5, Funny)

    by killeena (794394) on Monday January 23 2006, @12:32AM (#14536626) Homepage
    No reason to stop smoking now. Everyone light up!

    • Re:Fix Lung Cancer? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Voltageaav (798022) on Monday January 23 2006, @12:44AM (#14536677) Homepage
      According to the article, the gene only slows things down. In tests, tumor cells with the gene preasant are smaller, but they're still there. While it's very exciting and will undoubtably lead to new treatments, it's not a cure yet.
      • According to the article, the gene only slows things down.

        Considering that the major problem with cancer is that it rapily multiplies and spreads, I dare say that slowing it down is virtually a cure by itself. To take a rapidly metatisizing tumor and cut it down from ITS GOING TO KILL YOU to, well, you have a nasty lump is big.

        Especially if it can be used in place, or to lessen the duration, of radiation or chemotherapy for follow up care. My brother had a tumor in his neck removed 6 months ago. He is

    • Actually, a good percentage of lung cancers aren't caused by smoking. I don't recall the percentage, but it's significant. It's unfortunate that those suffering through lung cancer have the stigma that "they deserve it," as that's not true in all the cases, and nobody deserves to suffer though cancer. -- Paul
      • Screw the lung cancer. COPD (aka emphysema) has got to suck. Not everyone with cirrhosis or HepC is an alchy or sex whore, either.

      • Actually, a good percentage of lung cancers aren't caused by smoking. I don't recall the percentage, but it's significant.

        I have to disagree. Most studies estimate that ~90% of lung cancer patients are smokers. Furthermore, the incidence of cancer in smokers is also increased for other tumor types like oral cancer, laryngeal cancer (this one is practically an exclusive disease of smokers!) and bladder cancer. As a rough estimate, in our research database we have 71 lung cancer patients, 68 of which were

      • Actually, a good percentage of lung cancers aren't caused by smoking. I don't recall the percentage, but it's significant.

        Its about 10% from memory, but that would also depend on the population prevalance of smoking also - If you sampled from a community where nobody smoked, 100% of the cancers would be caused by something other than smoking.

        Its also a different kind of cancer typically (not a squamous cell one, more likely an adenocarcinoma IIRC) - in other words, it comes from a different cellular part of

      • Several others have already pointed out that roughly 90% of lung cancers are known to be caused by smoking. It is true that 10% are not, just as 50% car accidents are not caused by drunk driving. But that doesn't make drunk driving ok, sensible or sane.

        Back in the day when I worked in radiotherapy physics I came to a simple conclusion: if you took all the money being spent on the kind of research I was doing and put it into an modestly effective anti-smoking campaign, you would extend more lives much lon
        • For public smokers, I hope only that they are forced to sit in small, poorly ventilated rooms filled with smoke of a type they find unbearable for hours on end, every single day of their lives, until they die or quit smoking in public

          Listening to people whine about it is punishment enough. If I knew who you were, I'd blow smoke in your face every time I saw you.

    • No reason to stop smoking now. Everyone light up!

      It's a celebration, bitches!
  • I smoke quite a bit on a daily basis. Yes, I am well aware of my vice. This comes as pretty stellar news for me. Should, at some point in the future, this develop into a worthwhile treatment for cancers, I welcome it.

    Here's to our new gene discovering overlords; may you use your powers for good and not to create a new race of super intelligent and immortal beings.
    • To be honest, I have to disagree that this is stellar news for smokers. Even if you do have an easy cure for lung cancer available, this doesn't mean go ahead and smoke to your heart's content.

      Lung cancer isn't the only reason to stop smoking. It discolors your teeth, makes you stink and disturbs people around you.

      • Re:good news for me (and you) (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Voltageaav (798022) on Monday January 23 2006, @12:58AM (#14536734) Homepage
        Don't forget emphysema. I think that's a tad worse than discolored teeth, or the stench that surrounds you.
        • Don't forget health insurance.

          Smoking is a quick way to pay more for your insurance and some companies are now dropping smokers from health plans.

          Smoking also lengthens recovery times after surgery. Any surgeon you'd let slice you up would insist that you stop smoking for a certain period before and after the surgery.

          The only reason smoking isn't going to go away is that States desperately need the tax revenues that cigarette sales bring in. Pretty much the only people who don't get rich off cigarette sales
          • They may not get rich, but tobacco is about the only crop worth anything at all, most of the time. My grandfather used to raise 3 or 4 acres back in the early 80s, and I remember him saying it was worth 20 or 30 times as much as corn or soy. Even with all the extra work (tobacco gets stripped by hand).
            • No, Toebacky farmers are getting rich in the US because the US Govment is buying out their farms, or at least their production of tobacco.
              It's still voluntary at this point, and it's a pretty big carrot that they're dangling out in front of the farmers, even given the return tobacco farmers get normally.

              Unfortunately, the thing that will get livestock farmers in the US out of business will be SLAPP suits by PETA et al. (but we'll still keep importing meat and byproducts from Canada, Mexico, China, India, Au
              • >Unfortunately, the thing that will get livestock farmers in the US out of business will be SLAPP suits by PETA et al. >(but we'll still keep importing meat

                Is exactly why PETA and company are a bunch of traitors. They aren't solving any problems that they claim to be solving, just wrecking the American economy. Hopefully Bush the GREAT will dispense with them in his third term (after we adjust the constitution).

        • Re:good news for me (and you) (Score:5, Insightful)

          by ross.w (87751) <rwonderley&gmail,com> on Monday January 23 2006, @03:49AM (#14537265) Journal
          A quick survey of my four grandparents, while a small sample, is enlightening.

          Maternal Grandmother
          Sendentary job, never smoked. developed diabetes at age 70, constant blood pressure problems - died age 84 after years of suffering strokes

          Maternal Grandfather
          Athlete and Gallipoli Veteran - Not a smoker to my knowledge. Suffered with high blood pressure and died age 84 due to complications from Parkinson's disease.

          Paternal Grandmother
          Overweight to the point of obesity. Gave up smoking when in her 40s
          Died age 71 from complications resulting from Type 2 diabetes.

          Paternal Grandfather
          Stevedore and tennis coach. Smoked all his adult life until age 78. Always has two schooners (large glass) of beer every evening. Recently celebrated his 90th birthday. Suffers from Emphysema (not yet on oxygen) which will probably eventually kill him.

          From this small sample, it appears that lack of fitness will kill you just as quick if not quicker than smoking.

          So Slashdotters, instead of poking fingers at the smokers, get up, turn off your computer, get out from your Mother's basement and go for a walk. It might save your life.

          (I don't smoke btw)
          • The CDC numbers [usatoday.com] say that obesity kills 25,000 Americans a year; tobacco kills 430,000.

            BTW I second that call to break away from that computer and take a walk.

            But there's no reason to pretend obesity is a killer just like tobacco. It's not even in the same league.

            • I fully agree with you. and I wasn't trying to say that smoking is healthy. I don't smoke myself and never have. I hate being in the room when people are smoking. I'm just trying to point out that there are other things that can kill you, and smoking isn't the only lifestyle choice that can end your life early.

              My Grandfather was once told he'd live to be 100 if he quit smoking. He certainly wouldn't have emphysema now. That he has got to 90 is in spite of smoking, not because of it. I believe that his activ
      • Pipes smell good, and don't disturb sane people. Also, since pipes are not smoked as often as cigarettes, they discolour the teeth far less.

    • Re:good news for me (and you) (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Yeah, it'll be pretty awesome. The lung cancer won't kill you, so you'll be free to fully enjoy the emphysema and heart disease.

  • DNA methylation reversible? (Score:5, Informative)

    by aschoff_nodule (890870) on Monday January 23 2006, @12:36AM (#14536643)
    To my knowledge DNA methylation cannot be reversed and DNA methylase has not been found to exist yet. The only way DNA de-methylation at a particular CpG site in DNA can occur is by DNA replication(cell division), where replication of DNA gives an unmethylated CpG site.
    • This sounds like a job for Folding@Home....
    • To my knowledge DNA methylation cannot be reversed and DNA methylase has not been found to exist yet.
      Well, a web search for 'DNA demethylase' [google.com] turns up 70,000 results.
    • To my knowledge DNA methylation cannot be reversed and DNA methylase has not been found to exist yet. The only way DNA de-methylation at a particular CpG site in DNA can occur is by DNA replication(cell division), where replication of DNA gives an unmethylated CpG site.

      Huh?

      Last time I looked the point of DNA methylation was this:

      One of the four bases (I forget which) has a methylation site, and the DNA replication mechanism normally copies the methylation state as well as the base type. This effectively ma

      • Most medical doctors and researchers still think that junk DNA is junk. What is to say that the 90% of the DNA that has a unknown function might have something to do with activation/inactivation of genes?

        Your hypothesis is quite reasonable and (unsurprisingly) several researchers have already proposed this and are working on it. The majority of DNA is composed of so-called "repetitive elements" (a lot of DNA in humans is made of the "Alu" sequence, ~30-40% quoting from memory), some of which are transpo

  • One more breakthrough reported on /.? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by geneing (756949) on Monday January 23 2006, @12:41AM (#14536665)
    Well, as a regular /. reader I'm confused. In the past couple of year I've read dozens of reports here about breakthrough discoveries in cancer treatment and fusion research. However, neither cancer has been cured nor fusion reactors have been built.

    What am I missing? :)

    • In general, any breakthrough discovery requires years of follow-up testing to make sure it's actually valid, and even then whatever comes as a result of it will be of limited use and prohibitively expensive - even assuming that the follow-up testing didn't reveal any new hurdles, which it usually does.
    • That's not exactly fair ... there are many types of cancer that are routinely cured (cancer is not, after, a single disease) and there have been plenty of fusion reactors built ... they just don't actually generate usable power yet.
  • Have it been patented [georgetown.edu] yet [slashdot.org]?

  • might as well get it out of the way.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 23 2006, @12:47AM (#14536687)
    I for one welcome our new 6-packs-a-day cancerless overlords!

  • Oncology epidemiology and methylation... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CupBeEmpty (720791) on Monday January 23 2006, @12:56AM (#14536729) Homepage
    ..are areas that I have worked in, at the Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in NYC. I am not really that enthusiastic about this find. There are an enourmous amount of "cancer supressing genes" but very few yield useful clinical results. This seems to be a case of over-hyping (which occurs all the time) of a scientific find.
    • Yeah - add this to the jillion other tumor supressors. These give insights into the pathways that control cancerous cells, but have not been the great targets for therapy one might have thought when the first ones where found. There is nothing obviously special about this particular gene compared to the others. But my read would not be hyping - just someone who doesn't know where the base line is to begin with.
  • Any student who has taken an undergraduate course about cancer and/or signal transduction will tell you how large these networks are (which means a LOT of intricate pathways to remember for the exams... but I am digressing..). Which means that any genes whose function is as a tumor suppressor is discovered is only one out of many such genes known. Moreover, its not as if a mutation in one gene is ever a chief cause of a given type of cancer. Every mutated gene tends to increase the chances of cancer. I susp
  • Another example of researchers drumming up their findings. Altered methylation patterns of tumor suppressor gene promotor sequences is nothing new. Neither is the finding of a gene whose product can act to suppress tumor growth. There are many of those.Posting this on slashdot is somewhat overdone. DNA methylation is an exciting target for chemotherapy, that will doutblessly benefit cancer patients in the near future. But it is too early to cry victory.
  • I do IT support for that guy.

    He's a good guy.
    I think its crazy how you can work every day with a person and not really know the depth of what they do for a living.
  • sigh

    When will anyone listen to what *it* has to say?

    -Eric

    • Folate acts as a methyl group donor. The article describes a gene that is inactivated by hypermethylation (over methylation). More folate, and therefore more available methylgroups, is not likely to solve problems caused by methylation of a tumor suppressor gene.

      On the other hand, folate may be beneficial in preventing tumors that would arise from double stranded breaks in DNA caused by insufficient methyl group availability interfering with the creation of thymidine or through hypomethylation of oncogene

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.