Slashdot Log In
Researchers Find Potential Cure for Cancer
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Jan 05, 2007 08:47 AM
from the proverbial-cure-for-cancer dept.
from the proverbial-cure-for-cancer dept.
MECC writes "Researchers at Johns Hopkins University may have found a way to kill cancer cells without radiation or toxic chemicals. The group is taking the step of patenting the idea, as this new approach using sugars may hold real potential for the fight against cancer. This is not the first approach to use sugars, the article states, but is (by the researchers' estimation) the most successful. From the article: 'Sampathkumar and his colleagues built upon 20-year-old findings that a short-chain fatty acid called butyrate can slow the spread of cancer cells. In the 1980s, researchers discovered that butyrate, which is formed naturally at high levels in the digestive system by symbiotic bacteria that feed on fibre, can restore healthy cell functioning ... The researchers focused on a sugar called N-acetyl-D-mannosamine, or ManNAc, for short, and created a hybrid molecule by linking ManNAc with butyrate. The hybrid easily penetrates a cell's surface, then is split apart by enzymes inside the cell. Once inside the cell, ManNAc is processed into another sugar known as sialic acid that plays key roles in cancer biology, while butyrate orchestrates the expression of genes responsible for halting the uncontrolled growth of cancer cells.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Using Enzymes To Counter Cancer Growth 41 comments
sylvester22 writes to mention a Mercury News article about a possible breakthrough in cancer research from a research group in Oakland. Dr. Julie Saba and her team at the Children's Hospital Oakland Research Institute are working with 'lyase,' an intestinal enzyme that apparently can inhibit cancer growth. The problem is that this enzyme is almost never found after a growth has become active. From the article: "Using cells in a tissue culture Saba said she and her team 'have been able to turn-on the enzyme after cancer cell growth had occurred.' The researchers found that re-introducing the enzyme made chemotherapy more effective in tissue cultures. 'Although we're beginning our studies in colon cancer, we believe our research findings will have a direct impact on investigations for other cancers, including pediatric cancers,' said Saba."
This discussion has been archived.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.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
All this... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:All this... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
At least... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Bravo, well played sir. But does that mean we're nearing the end game, or do we just keep researching numbered future techs now?
Drama, anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
Mmmmm (Score:3, Funny)
Mmmmm, sugar donuts. Is there anything they can't do?
She's a ManNAc, ManNAc, (Score:5, Funny)
Patent ? Idea ? (Score:5, Insightful)
"The group is taking the step of patenting the idea"
Patenting
What the hell
Defensive? (Score:4, Informative)
For the guy asking about perspective, take a look at the sugars vs. hepatitis article from a couple days ago, where they were working around a patent for treatment to produce a low cost version, while the drug company charged $14,000/yr for treatment. A cure for cancer is worthless to most of the population if it costs a million bucks.
Parent
Overblown story... (Score:5, Informative)
Malignant Property (Score:5, Insightful)
The logic contained in that "as" apparently dictates that curing cancer is more important for making money than for everyone's health. Apparently without any explanation needed, or question expected. Also unquestioned is the vast amount of money spent by the public (you and your family, for generations) subsidizing all the research these "inventors" used to produce their new idea.
There's a lot of discussion on Slashdot of justifications for piracy of media content. Fighting the arbitrary assignment of all value from medical inventions to the last people to use their predecessors to cross a commercial threshold seems not only more obviously moral, but more relevant to basic survival. And a stronger study in the arbitrary contrasts between the "robber" and the "robbed".
Its cool they posted my submission (Score:5, Informative)
Not a complaint - an observation.
Cure for cancer patented.... (Score:5, Funny)
Cancer stem cells (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't hold your breath... (Score:3, Interesting)
Much ado about...not much (Score:5, Insightful)
Relevant information: not yet tested on whole living systems. They pissed off some cancer cells in a Petri dish. Big deal. You know what kills cancer cells in Petri dishes? A sledgehammer. Cyanide. Dynamite. Driving over the Petri dish with a Buick. None of these therapies are likely to be useful, however.
Wait, you cry. Laetrile released cyanide in vivo, and that was an (alleged) therapy.
Yeah, systemic poison-giving is already at hand. It is called chemotherapy, and it sucks. It can work, but it is never pretty.
Infusing the patient with sialic acid, which will enevitably infiltrate by this method into every cell, cancerous or not, is twiddling with every biological pathway with which sialic acid interacts. Butyric acid (the essence of sour butter)? Rub it on. Hasn't harmed anyone yet - whats the LD50 for old butter?
Maybe there is promise here, and maybe there is just breathless scientific prose in a self-serving PR release.
My guess is that once whole animals come into the picture, these researchers, as many many before, will find out that biochemistry farts in your Petri dish's general direction.
Calm down, people (Score:5, Funny)
A bit too early to get excited... (Score:4, Interesting)
It is partially offtopic... (Score:4, Interesting)
Most of our body is made of muscle or fat cells, yet sarcoma is quite rare.
Has someone studied a way to make the other kinds of cells so resistent to cancer ?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's why sarcomas and neuroblastomas (neuron
High fibre diet is the answer? (Score:4, Insightful)
If the claims are true, the vegetarians and those ethnic groups that have lots of fiber in their diet should have lower cancer rates. Some epidemiological (sp?) study should be able to figure out the patterns. Should study groups with highly off the norm dietary habits. Results would be intersting.
insert your favourite big agro conspiracy theory that has depressed the natural and less refined food consumption in America
no such thing as "cancer" (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought there was already a cure? (Score:4, Funny)
Here we go again. (Score:4, Insightful)
The idea in the article sounds interesting, but it is clearly being framed in a way to provoke an audience to become outraged at the idea of "patenting the cure for cancer."
Shirley there are researchers here on slashdot who have worked in cancer, who are rolling their eyes about now, in fact, I have an extended family member who is a PI on a long standing cancer research project and I can't wait to hear their take. I suspect this is old news among people in the cancer research community, but I'll have to wait for the school year to start before I can ask. I won't even forward an article with the title "Cancer Cure Patented", come on!
Mary Poppins was right! (Score:5, Funny)
So, Mary Poppins was right! A spoonful of sugar does help the medicine go down! And in a most delightful way, too!
Don't be so cynical (Score:5, Insightful)
- Any monies derived from it can be fed back into further research
- Megacorp can't steal the idea and patent it for themselves
Universities have budgets to manage and need to behave in a business like way just like everyone else but they are not Big Business.Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In theory, they could use this basic patent to prevent pharma from harvesting cash in the future. But they won't. This is academia, where the system cannot function without large cash flows. Do you really think that university presidents with solid six-figure salaries, thousand square foot office
Re:Don't be so cynical (Score:4, Insightful)
The point of patents is not to make companies money, as you seem to imagine, it is to make sure that companies share their secrets. The alternative to patents is not wild free information, it is corporations taking secrecy to whole new levels, and never sharing ANY of their findings, to keep their competitive edge.
Parent
Re:Don't be so cynical (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
My thoughts on any "cures" from this country (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:FP? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:FP? (Score:4, Insightful)
My mother died last year from cancer. The type of cancer she had is not very frequent so there's not much money to make. The chemo-therapie and other therapy forms were not specifically developed for this type and do not work very effective and so she died.
I also travel frequently to developing countries and people I have known there died from malaria, no vaccination or anything because the people mostly affected are poor. And so there is not much research.
No, sir, no "anti-corporation blabber". It's just a plain fact that corporations (and by that patents) will help you only if there is enough money to be made. That is no blabber but pure clean capitalistic economy.
It is nothing else. It doesn't matter how many people are affected (malaria and AIDS) or how severe the problem is (cancer vs obesity), it's just about profit. So do not start with family member or the children examples. Business means revenue over humans.
Parent
Re:FP? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:FP? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:FP? (Score:4, Insightful)
Your comparison is obviously invalid.
Parent
Re:FP? (Score:5, Insightful)
I am MUCH more trusting of these university research guys than some corporate pharm lab research guys as far as doing the right thing with the patent. Hopefully it won't be misplaced, but lets not jump to conclusions.
Parent
Re:FP? (Score:4, Insightful)
Grow up. The company that comes up with a truly effective, broadly acting cure for cancer is going to make more money than God, even if they provide it at a low cost. And because every company hopes to be first, everybody has an incentive to throw a hat in the ring. And of course, once you make that huge investment, even if you can't be first, you still go to market, meaning that there's at least some competition to bring prices down.
Pharmaeceutical companies do plenty of seriously messed up stuff in order to make money, but disease profiteering isn't one of them. If there was the slightest shred of proof to show that they're purposefully avoiding developing a cure so they can instead sell palliatives, don't you think patients advocate groups would be screaming for blood from the rooftops?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It couldn't have anything to do with cancer being difficult to successfully treat, could it? Or that most of the really nasty cancers (lung, pancreatic, bowel) are detected pretty late in the game, huh?
Naw, must be greed.
Re:I hate to say this... (Score:5, Informative)
I've worked in the healthcare industry for years. Trust me when I tell you that they are about money first, second, and third.
Parent
Re:I hate to say this... (Score:4, Informative)
Just a clarification: just because an organization is registered as not-for-profit does not mean it is not in the business of making money. Not-for-profits need just as much income to operate as regular businesses. The primary difference is the after-expenses dollar doesn't go into pockets, it returns to the organization (or funder) to spend it during that fiscal year. However, salaries can still be high and spending can be furious, just like other businesses.
I'm not saying you are wrong about health companies being driven by money, but many people commonly mistake not-for-profits with Mother Theresa, and that is usually false.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've worked in the healthcare industry for years. Trust me when I tell you that they are about money first, second, and third.
Oh, give me a fucking break! Let me just list three reasons why your point is completely stupid:
Re:I hate to say this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone who is whining FUD about there being a money grubbing axis of evil, clearly doesn't work in the real world. Having been completely federal grant funded for 2 years at a university, I can tell you, the lights don't stay on by themselves, the phone bills don't get paid, failed trials still cost the same as succesful ones... Even "non-profit" organizations can't lose money continously (and grants are being slashed every day), especially when conducting trials which can take years to conduct and hundreds of millions to complete. I'm not saying big-pharma is the least bit altruistic (and yes, they would sell their grandmother in a heartbeat) but since we don't live in the era of star-trek-the-next-generation where poverty has apparently been eliminated, and work and funding is apparently universal, one must make money to stay in business.
There is not a conspiracy for chemotherapeutic drugs to hold-down cures (as those would be the "new" drugs for sale by big pharma if they became useful therapies), but a conspiracy by cancer cells to continue living despite our best efforts. I have heard the same FUD about big-pharma sitting on miracle antibiotics, but in truth those would be huge sellers, it's just that bacteria have gotten very good at living over the last several billion years.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I was looking for a comment like this so I wouldn't have to write it myself. Just to add to the notes of caution + hope, the research on cell surface receptiors, signalling molecules, and the like, sounds very promising. A couple of months ago, there was a report on the BBC [bbc.co.uk] about a different "sugar" molecule that is involved in cell signalling during blood vessel growth. Since tumors can't grow without lots of new blood vessels to supply them, this approach can stop them in their tracks. The trick is ge
Re: (Score:3)
Certain types of cancer have been very difficult to treat, either due to late detection, or the sensitivity of the surrounding area (e.g. brain tumors). Childhood leukemia, her specialty, has gone from a 50% survival rate in the late 70's to a 9
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sheesh. You know, even mean, nasty, conspiratorial CEOs with giant handlebar mustaches get cancer, too.
Re:I hate to say this... (Score:4, Interesting)
The "health care industry" can be relied upon to act in self interest of each of it's parts, not the whole.
If Ford came up with a car that everybody wanted to buy (this is a thought experiment, so doesn't have to be anything short of pure fantasy) and it lasted four times as long so they could only sell a quarter of them. What do you think would happen? They call up Toyota and say "you know, we all make some money here we'll just shelve this".
No.
They go at it full blast and try to make as much money with what _they_ can do, to hell with every other segment of the industry.
So, the first research place to come up with a better cancer treatment and even if it is cheap overall, if they can patent it and make more money than they do now (keep in mind, they know other smart folks are working on the same problem, they gain NOTHING by keeping it secret) they'll do it.
You are stupidly assuming the paranoia about the big health care industry is correct. Big oil, big pharma, big lumber, whatever... they only act in concert because it's a mob rule where their self interest seems to make them do pretty much the same sorts of things. As soon as one can break out of that pattern and make more money, they'll do it. Or, perhaps some other company comes along with a "disruptive technology" and does it. Either way, the status quo is due to the issues involved, not due to collusion amongst the parts of the industry.
Parent
Re:I hate to say this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Only on teh InArw3b could this be modded "insightful".
Let's see, there's a really complicated, deadly family of diseases.
Why haven't we cured them? 2 possibilities:
1) it's really hard, and we haven't figured it out yet
2) a secret cabal of giant corporations is colluding to make sure nobody releases it so they can make more money.
Obviously, 2 is the logical answer, right?
I'm sure the recipe for the cure is on a 3x5 card stored right next to the Ark of the Covenant in that warehouse at the end of Indiana Jones. I believe Elvis is the warehouse guard, too.
Parent