Slashdot Log In
Cell Division Reversed for the First Time
Posted by
samzenpus
on Thu Apr 13, 2006 01:58 AM
from the two-in-one dept.
from the two-in-one dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived.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.
The way it really happens (Score:5, Funny)
WhatsAPro.com [whatsapro.com]
Re:The way it really happens (Score:5, Funny)
Why is this outrageous video not labeled "not safe for work" or something?!
Parent
Re:The way it really happens (Score:3, Funny)
Does this mean ... (Score:4, Funny)
Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
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...
Reminds me of... (Score:3, Funny)
Just like Eminem and Kim?
Reverse (Score:5, Funny)
Eeewww!! Grosss!!
Anybody else also reminded of those "see me eat my hamburger in reverse" videos?
Two sets of chromosomes? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Two sets of chromosomes? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Parent
Finally! (Score:4, Funny)
d00d! (Score:3, Funny)
*Kryten's head explodes*
Press Release Promises Flying Cars (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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.
Re:We've been at war with cancer for over 50 years (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:We've been at war with cancer for over 50 years (Score:3, Informative)
Re:We've been at war with cancer for over 50 years (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:We've been at war with cancer for over 50 years (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:We've been at war with cancer for over 50 years (Score:3, Informative)
Re:We've been at war with cancer for over 50 years (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:We've been at war with cancer for over 50 years (Score:5, Interesting)
Good examples of cancers with excellent cure rates are Wilm's tumor [wikipedia.org], acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) [emedicine.com], neuroblastoma [wikipedia.org],retinoblastoma [wikipedia.org], and Hodgkin's lymphoma [wikipedia.org].
And this is just breaking the tip of the iceberg. Most of that NIH money actually goes to good use, unlike a lot of government spending.
Parent
Re:We've been at war with cancer for over 50 years (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Parent
Re:We've been at war with cancer for over 50 years (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:We've been at war with cancer for over 50 years (Score:3, Insightful)
It just SEEMS like it's taking them forever to die.
Re:Video method? (dumb question) (Score:5, Funny)
Popular Mechanics hasn't covered this one yet as it's only been around for about 400 years
Parent
Re:Video method? (dumb question) (Score:3, Informative)