Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Cell Division Reversed for the First Time

Posted by samzenpus on Thu Apr 13, 2006 12:58 AM
from the two-in-one dept.
Biotech Science
SubtleGuest writes "Gary J. Gorbsky, Ph.D., a scientist with the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, has found a way to reverse the process of cell division. The discovery could have important implications for the treatment of cancer, birth defects and numerous other diseases and disorders. Gorbsky's findings appear in the April 13 issue of the journal Nature. "No one has gotten the cell cycle to go backwards before now," said Gorbsky. "This shows that certain events in the cell cycle that have long been assumed irreversible may, in fact, be reversible." In the lab, Gorbsky and his OMRF colleagues were able to control the protein responsible for the division process, interrupt and reverse the event, sending duplicate chromosomes back to the center of the original cell, an event once thought impossible. Here is a video of it happening."
+ -
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This discussion has been archived.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.

Cell Division Reversed for the First Time 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • The way it really happens (Score:5, Funny)

    by WhatsAProGingrass (726851) on Thursday April 13 2006, @01:05AM (#15119124) Homepage
    And here [nature.com] is the video of cell division. only its played in reverse.

    WhatsAPro.com [whatsapro.com]

  • Does this mean ... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2006, @01:05AM (#15119126)
    It might not be too late to 'take back' that decision you made to have children 10 years ago?
  • ... and we are loosing that war. i've heard many times, and have even caught myself saying, that there will be a cure for cancer soon. hasn't happened yet. so whenever i hear:

    important implications for the treatment of cancer

    i get my hopes up for a little while, just as most of the world has since the War on Cancer was officially announced in the 50's, and untold amounts of money have been spent by the NIH. but the truth is, i probably need to quit smoking to have the best chance at not dying from canc

    • sorry, my uncle just died from lymphoma this weekend, and i keep staring at the cigarette i'm smoking with a pained look.

      I've always assumed that most smokers are people with untreated ADHD. Has anyone read anything to indicate whether or not this is the case?

      The positive effects of smoking (feeling calmed down and more focused) are the same effects of ADHD medication except, obviously, the medication won't cause cancer, it is given in a dose that is consistent through the entire day, and it is not addi

      • It wouldn't. A smoker only feels "calmed down" because their craving has been satiated. The physical effects of nicotine increase stress on the brain and heart, they can focus because they're not constantly thinking about when they'll get their next hit, or how long they'll have to wait.
        • But nicotine is a stimulant just like ADHD medications are. Are you sure that there aren't multiple things going on at the same time here? I don't know anything about the biology, so you may well be right, but I'd be interested in a url to some information on a correlation or lack thereof between ADHD and smoking. Also, what do you mean by increased stress on the brain?
        • A smoker only feels "calmed down" because their craving has been satiated

          Actually, a smoker feels calmed down due to elevated levels of dopamine generated by the nicotine. While withdrawl symptoms can cause stress which is then relieved by more nicotine, that doesn't discount the stimulant effects of smoking.

      • Close, but not quite. I'm the opposite of ADHD. As a kid I could focus intently on one task for hours, oblivious to everything around me. And I didn't smoke as a kid :-) If smokers simply had untreated ADHD, then they would have had ADHD as kids before they learned to smoke.

        But you are right in a way. Smoking did calm me down, and after I quit I felt really stupid for about a year because I couldn't focus well.
        • I can't say whether or not you have ADHD, but I'd just like to correct a misconception that ADHD just implies a lack of attention. The name is a misnomer. ADHD is really about a lack of ability to control attention. An ADHD person will sometimes hyper focus to the exclusion of everything and sometimes have no ability to feel comfortable continuing to do anything for very long. Obviously, everyone falls somewhere on that sort of scale. It's just when someone hits those extremes too often that it is a problem

      • Re:We've been at war with cancer for over 50 years (Score:4, Informative)

        by Colonel Angus (752172) on Thursday April 13 2006, @06:59AM (#15119887)
        ADHD medication? No. Depression medication? Yes.

        Zyban, a fanfrickin'tastic smoking cessation pill, is simply remarketed Welbutrin. Welbutrin is an anti-depressant.

        It seems that they discovered many of the smokers taking Welbutrin reported a marked decrease in cigarette cravings. Now you can buy the *exact* same drug with a different colour coating and a different name to help you quit smoking.

        I have taken it. I was doing well, until a death in the family (non-cancer or smoking-related) buggered me up. Pathetic excuse, I know.

        But while I was on Zyban I would literally go hours (unheard of any other time) without even thinking about a cigarette. It's really something else.
    • As someone who quit smoking two years ago, let me tell you the easiest way to do it: just do it! It's that simple. There are things that will help, but the core of it is to simply stop.

      I woke up one day and said "I'm going to quit next monday." I spent that week tapering off somewhat, and used the patch when I quit. I don't know how much of an effect the tapering and patch had, but they were isignificant compared to the effect of simply quitting.
    • > We've been at war with cancer for over 50 years and we are loosing that war. Loosing that war on who? Loosing it on "ze Germans"?
    • you can quit. say this often.

      i've been a non-smoker for 1 year, 51 weeks (my stop anniversary is 4/20! hah!)

      the thing that finally worked for me was practice. you gotta practice quitting until you get it right. 1 day, 3 weeks, 14 months, whatever, if you fail, try again, and try again soon.

      the other thing that helps in quitting is knowing yourself: why you smoke, why you want to smoke, what helps you not want to smoke, etc. self knowledge and a bit of determination is about all you need. oh, yeah, tr
      • In Canada (I'm sure the USA is similar), the overall cancer rate is now 1 in 2 ... that's right 50% of the population will contract cancer at some point in their life (most of those will eventually die from it). Here's the real shocker. The Government response... (snip rant about carcinogens)

        You're the victim of a very fundamental misunderstanding. The overall cancer death rate is actually 1 in 1. If you live long enough, you will eventually die of cancer. It's a perfectly-normal consequence of telomere loss due to aging.

        As we get better at preventing and treating heart disease and other vascular problems like stroke, it's only reasonable to expect cancer death rates to rise. It is not reasonable to start leaping to wild-assed conclusions about carcinogens, cell phones, and conspiracies. None of those are the problem. The problem is that most of the low-hanging fruit in the health-care business has been picked, and only the hard problems like cancer (which, as others have noted, refers to a great variety of different diseases) remain.
      • It's easy to lower the cancer death rate; make sure people die of something else first!

        Males will all eventually get prostate cancer; the rates are rising because they aren't dieing of the things we traditionally died of in the past - communicable diseases, war, accident and heart disease.

        If we got out and started a good war, fewer people would die of cancer! Think of Iraq as a big anti-cancer crusade.

      • Re:We've been at war with cancer for over 50 years (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Shihar (153932) on Thursday April 13 2006, @02:38AM (#15119366)
        In Canada (I'm sure the USA is similar), the overall cancer rate is now 1 in 2 ... that's right 50% of the population will contract cancer at some point in their life (most of those will eventually die from it).

        More people die of cancer because fewer people die of other things. Most (certainly not all) cancer is related to age. We are getting very good at living a very long time compared to what is "natural". The result is that old age disease take a heavier portion of our deaths. We have dramatically slashed the number of deaths to viruses and infection in first world nations.

        Even cancer is less of a killer then it used to be. More people get cancer because they live longer, but more people survive cancer then ever. As far as sucking air goes, there has not been a better time to be alive (in terms of life span) so long as you are in a first world nation. It is entirely possible that most kids born in 2000 will live to see 2100. Hell, it is very likely that a large portion of the people who are just now leaving college will live to see 2100.

      • dude, u have to make a choice whether you're life is worth saving or not. we all die one day but you have to believe that life is worth it enough to quit smoking .. even if you quit and go back, quit and go back, eventually you'll just quit for good .. it doesn't take an iron will it just takes persistence and believing in that your life will be worth living! :)

        You hit the head on the nail. (purposely reversed)

        If we didn't do anyhtign that is supposed to be bad ofr you or cause this problem or that we wou

        • You better quit smoking then, since your family MAY have a predisposition for cancer. Which doesn't mean you'll get it, just that it MAY be more probable. At least three people in my near family have died from lung cancer, so if I smoked I'd probably be dead in a couple of years... Admittedly, they all died in their 70's, but I believe it shows something anyway.
  • There must be a Cell processor story somewhere that Slashdot could post. That would make it three cell stories in a row. It's funny becuase it's repeated.

  • Wow (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DarkProphet (114727) <chadwick_nofx@ho ... om minus painter> on Thursday April 13 2006, @01:30AM (#15119173)
    If this is for real, all I can say is

    Holy shit!

    It would be theoretically possible to create a certain protein which targets cell-specific division. Like cancer cells. It wouldn't eradicate the cancerous cells, but it would certainly slow or possibly stop the cells' replication.

    Of course, I imagine the devil's in the details...
  • I'm quite curious, could someone explain what sort of technology is used to observe chemical reactions at such a small level? (such as that in the video)

    • Re:Video method? (dumb question) (Score:5, Funny)

      by dthx1138 (833363) on Thursday April 13 2006, @01:50AM (#15119217)
      I believe it's called a "micro-scope" Microscope [wikipedia.org]

      Popular Mechanics hasn't covered this one yet as it's only been around for about 400 years

    • On the left you are seeing phase contrast microscopy, changes in the cell cause changes in the refraction of light. On the right hand you are seeing fluorescence microscopy, special fluorescent proteins have been added on the end of specific proteins in the cell and when certain light is applied they fluoresce.
    • From the article "Time-lapse phasecontrast and fluorescence images were collected from cells grown on glass coverslips using a Zeiss Axiovert 200M microscope equipped with a Hamamatsu ORCA camera." They use a fancy (and expensive) inverted light microscope with a digital camera attached to it to take the images. The section on the right part of the movie is made using with a fluorescence stain as the cell proceeds through mitosis. There is a light source attached to the microscope that emits light at a

  • Reminds me of... (Score:3, Funny)

    by helioquake (841463) * on Thursday April 13 2006, @01:33AM (#15119181) Journal
    So one cell gets split and then they merge back together again and again?

    Just like Eminem and Kim?

  • Reverse (Score:5, Funny)

    by suv4x4 (956391) on Thursday April 13 2006, @01:45AM (#15119206)
    "a scientist with the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, has found a way to reverse the process of cell division."

    Eeewww!! Grosss!!

    Anybody else also reminded of those "see me eat my hamburger in reverse" videos?

  • Like my raincoat!

    -:sigma.SB

  • Two sets of chromosomes? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by deopmix (965178) on Thursday April 13 2006, @01:52AM (#15119228)
    The article doesn't say if the chromosomes merge back into one or not. I can't imagine that this would be possible, given the complexity of DNA. So does the cell just sit there with two sets of chromosomes. Also, would this be a way to build some kind of super muscle, with twice as many mitochondria?

    • Also, would this be a way to build some kind of super muscle, with twice as many mitochondria?

      I doubt it. However, it may be the process the mondocheewans used to produce leeloowallawallabingbangwatermelonsauerkrautdallas multipass.

    • Human cells can't live with 2x (92) the diplood number (46) of chromosomes. Our cells can only handle the one set it's supposed to have. Just having one duplicate chromosome can cause problems like Down's syndrome which is caused by having an extra 21st chromosome. The merged cell in this case would probably end up dying and lysing itself.

    • Re:Two sets of chromosomes? (Score:4, Informative)

      by shawb (16347) on Thursday April 13 2006, @04:05AM (#15119538)
      This paper [nature.com] said in the summary that this process leads to "realignment of chromosomes at themetaphase plate." So, they do not merge back into one.

      What the scientists were mostly concerned with is the fact that this supported the theory that a particular protein directed cell division, at least during a certain phase. The partial reversal of mitosis was just an interesting side effect. The medical and other biological research interest comes in place because now that we have identified this protein and proven that it is indeed the one that regulates mitosis, we can prevent further mitosis by the use of an inhibitor chemical. While this may seem to be a possible cure for cancer, such a discovery would be extremely difficult to put into practice as a pill you take or shot you take. This inhibitor would likely suspend mitosis of ALL cells, breaking down the functioning of many biological processes. Unless a compound is found that preferentially affects cancer cells, which may be possible due to the high division rate in some forms of cancer. This would have little to no effect on cancers caused by a failure in apoptosis. Then again "Cancer" is just a blanket term for a large number of different disorders in which a group of cells grows and divides without control, causing detriment to the rest of the body. Making cancer study mroe difficult is that it often takes failures in several different control systems for a cell to become carcinogenic, as there is a fair bit of redundancy built into these sytems. A "predisposition" to a certain type of cancer often means that one of the inherited genes controlling one arm of the control system is already flawed, so less somatic mutations [nodak.edu] are required before carcinogenesis. Inherited failure in too many of the control pathways would probably result in termination or developmental failure at a very early stage of embryonic development.
  • On how long until this is made into a weapon. Large-scale reverse-division on a complex organism would have some very unpleasant consequences, and on other scales one could probably use the concept to reverse/prevent healing.

  • Finally! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Firehed (942385) on Thursday April 13 2006, @02:07AM (#15119269) Homepage
    I can use this cell undevision (fusion?) technique to revert myself to a giant sperm. And I'll be smart enough to choose the best genes before finding myself an equally oversized egg to start over. Who wouldn't want in-home eugenics?
  • I wonder if it is possible for the cell to redivide after the reverse happened. This could end up being some control mechanism for nanobots or nano-medicine.
  • Wouldn't the reverse of cell division simply be cell multiplication? [pnas.org] That doesn't sound so hard.
  • Where are the Tuttle jokes? What's happened with Slashdot? The story mentions Oklahoma, people! Let's get on the ball!

    You know, maybe they can reverse that city manager's cell division! Ha ha!

    No, wait, let me try again.

    In Tuttle, Oklahoma, the cells divide you!

    Okay. Maybe there's a reason no one's done a Tuttle joke yet. Although "unfunny" doesn't usually count as a reason on Slashdot.

  • d00d! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Black Parrot (19622) on Thursday April 13 2006, @03:01AM (#15119412)
    The inverse of division is multiplication, so cell division is its own inverse.

    *Kryten's head explodes*
  • The ability to return a cell to metaphase upon the removal of a chemical (Flavopiridol) which causes the mitotic exit of cells which are expressing non-degredatable Cyclin B is interesting, but it definetly tells us nothing about how to reverse this process in non-transformed human cells. The press release is a bit too effusive about the potential of this finding to radically transform the treatment of cancer, etc. as the finding primarily recomfirms the hypothesis that the degredation of cyclin B is what gives directionality to the cell process, and by blocking the degredation of Cyclin B, you can reverse the cell cycle.

    And just in case you're confused like the submitter, there's way more than one protein involved in the cell division process in any eukaryotic cell; Cyclins like Cyclin B are very important, but it's a whole host of proteins that are involved in ushering the cell from G1 to S to G2 to M; assuring alignment, proper exit, arrest upon damage, etc. [One could even argue that the whole point of most cells is to divide, and so every bit of the cell is important and/or participates in some way in the process...]

  • Be real (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dr. Eggman (932300) on Thursday April 13 2006, @06:18AM (#15119766)
    It's not a cure for old age, its no longer possible after a certain point so you can't reverse an entire lineage back to one cell.

    It's not going to reverse cancer either, for the same reason. What it *might* do, if you can determine on a cellular level which cells are cancerous, is halt the growth (assuming it doesn't just start dividing again. It doesn't even say if the DNA recombines, which I doubt it would do.

    The real value is that old scientific standby, knowledge. Greater knowledge of what makes a cell tick, what factors trigger when its ready to divide will result in new cures, safer cures, and, of course, new understanding. If we can figure out why a cell divides, we can perhaps block those triggers and stop the division of cells like cancer. Greatly slowing or even stopping cell metabolism and division will be an important part of imposing a long term stasis or hibernation in humans experiencing long space travels to mars and the like. Understanding how to trigger cell reproduction could be one of the most important steps in reviving persons who have cyrogenically frozen themselves, too.

  • Proof at Last! (Score:3, Funny)

    by trongey (21550) on Thursday April 13 2006, @01:46PM (#15123255) Homepage
    Now we can prove evolution. Just reverse all the cells back to their previous state until we get back to the original single-cell organism.

    OK. Sure, nobody would be around any more to see it, but that's beside the point.

    It would also be a great opportunity for Earth to pass on that whole human mistake.
        • And because it isn't a true reversal, these cells are likely to be seriously mucked up long term.

          Downs syndrome [ds-health.com] is caused by an extra copy of chromosome 21.

          If you have two copies of chromosome 18, you get Trisomy 18. [trisomy.org] Something you don't want. Basically, having extra copies of any chromosome is a 'bad thing'. Having an additional 23 pairs of chromosomes in addition to the normal 23 pairs, is extremely likely to lead to very abnormal cellular function.

          While this is a very interesting finding in ways

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.