Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Science

Gene Therapy Ages Human Cancer Cells in Lab 318

mattr writes "Korean scientists are the first in the world to selectively age off and kill human cancer cells, by injecting a gene that suppresses telomerase, a cancer-specific enzyme that normally makes cancer cells immortal by protecting the telomere tips of their chromosomes. The telomere length modulation mechanism was found by two scientists from Yonsei University and colleagues at U. Central Florida, and is reported in the April 1 issue of Genes and Development magazine."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gene Therapy Ages Human Cancer Cells in Lab

Comments Filter:
  • who gets credit (Score:1, Insightful)

    by cRueLio ( 679516 ) <[moc.nsm] [ta] [oileurc]> on Wednesday April 06, 2005 @11:35PM (#12162397) Homepage Journal
    my bet is that the in the end the korean guys will be forgotten and only the americans will be remembered... same thing happens on a smaller scale with the graduate students doing the research and the professor... that's how it works. it's not fair.
  • by daquake ( 307570 ) * on Wednesday April 06, 2005 @11:37PM (#12162414) Homepage Journal
    This is incredible in theory, but what time frame are we talking about in humans once this gene is injected? Will it adversely affect human cells? I read it targets a cancer specific enzyme but am I missing anything? Could this be a cure, after the fact? (Bio-Medical newbie here).
  • Re:who gets credit (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 06, 2005 @11:42PM (#12162451)
    That's really not very insightful.

    Put 6 graduate students in a room without a professor's guidance, watch and see how much work gets done in one hand, and shit it in the other... guess which one fills first, if at all.

    The professor really is the person who knows what is going on, but they physically can't do the work because of all the administrative and teaching tasks... and not to mention, they have to go out and compete to get the money to fund the damn thing in first place. It's not like the money knocks on the door.
  • Re:I wonder... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by TrashGod ( 752833 ) on Wednesday April 06, 2005 @11:43PM (#12162459) Journal
    Can we ... stop the aging of other cells?

    Yes, but immortality is a feature of cancerous cells. That might be a Bad Idea.
  • Re:who gets credit (Score:4, Insightful)

    by deathcloset ( 626704 ) on Wednesday April 06, 2005 @11:43PM (#12162463) Journal
    well, are you going to forget? I'm not.

    so long as we remember and make sure to cite and post what we remember and write articles for wikipedia on what we remember then such things will not be forgotten or overlooked.

    these days "they" are less and less often the media and the journals.

    "They" is becomming "us", and I love it.
  • by qewl ( 671495 ) on Wednesday April 06, 2005 @11:44PM (#12162470)
    This is exactly why the United States needs to donate more money to basic research. Of late science has seemed unimportant to the government, research funds have reduced and things aren't being done to provoke technologies. Instead of the government subsidizing all sorts of medications from the drug industries, there just needs to be more research towards more permanent alternatives and a reduction in patent powers. There are gene therapies for AIDS coming out and candidates for vaccines, but yet the US government still spends more money on sending current drugs out than actually thinking long term. This is sad when a small country like Korea has gotten ahead of the US and they certainly have in stem cell research and now potetially gene therapy. It would be great to have California's CIRM on a larger level.
  • Obvious question (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ChuckSchwab ( 813568 ) on Wednesday April 06, 2005 @11:47PM (#12162494) Journal
    If telomerase makes cancer cells immortal, is someone working on a way to make, uh, non-cancer cells immortal?
  • by pmazer ( 813537 ) on Thursday April 07, 2005 @12:06AM (#12162620)
    I think loosing fertility is a suitable side-effect for most people with cancer. If this works 100% or at least if you can tell if it will work or if it won't, then most people will be happy to give up their fertility in exchange for ridding their body of a potentially deadly enzyme. Also, this will be a wonder drug for seniors, who could most likely care less about fertility and who chemotherapy will make incredibly weak and not worth living.
  • by ag0ny ( 59629 ) <javi@nOSpAM.lavandeira.net> on Thursday April 07, 2005 @12:14AM (#12162673) Homepage
    Infertility is also a side-effect of, well, being dead because of cancer.

    If you were given the choice between being alive but infertile or being dead, which one would you choose?
  • fertiliy loss (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 07, 2005 @12:16AM (#12162685)
    Cancer patients are worried about loss of life, not loss of fertility. Fertility loss is manageable. First of all, loss of fertility is an acceptable trade off if it means you won't die of cancer. But if it is a concern, you simply bank some of your sperm or eggs before undergoing the procedure.

    Also keep in mind that the vast majority of cancers strike later in life when, presumeably, you are less likely to want to have, or to be capable of having, children.

  • by utexaspunk ( 527541 ) on Thursday April 07, 2005 @12:17AM (#12162692)
    Actually, saccharin doesn't cause cancer in humans. A few years ago, it was found that the mechanism which caused the bladder tumors in rats does not happen in humans. Notice how they no longer print the warning on packages of sweet'n'low? Besides, they had to feed the rats TONS of it to get them to develop the tumors anyway.
  • Re:who gets credit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 07, 2005 @12:33AM (#12162803)
    I know it sounds very progressive to make those sort of assertions, but they don't have much merit. Anyone with even a rudimentary scientific background will tell you that key scientific breakthroughs come from all over. As a matter of fact, in the past few years there has been a considerable amount of concern within the American scientific community over the lag in American research and publication. Research just isn't a priority anymore in America, and we are beginning to feel the effect.

    My guess is that the Korean scientists will keep their credit, just like the Koreans scientists who recently successfully generated stem cells from somatic adult tissues, just like the Dutchman who came up with the microscope, just like the Moravian monk who counted peas, just like the Swede Botanist retained credit for the Linnaean classification, just like the Russian Chemist retained credit for the periodic table, just like 10th century Arabs retained credit for much of Algebra, just like citizens of Greek city-states retain credit for beginning to formalize reason.

    The capacity for human genius is universal, and in the reality based community known as science, we appreciate that. It belittles the intellects of foreign researchers and the hard work of American scientists to say otherwise.
  • Re:Koreans (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 07, 2005 @12:36AM (#12162828)
    well true but if you do use fetal cells for research which are not controlled by the government they take away all you government funding. Since the medical community is largly funded by the government it makes it extremely hard to do this research. In a sense the government basically has banned it. Taking away all of someones money because they did something you don't like is pretty much the same as banning it but in a really nice way since you don't go to prison for violating the law.
  • Re:who gets credit (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 07, 2005 @12:40AM (#12162844)
    Graduate students get credit, at least in the sciences. That's why there's almost always more than two authors on a paper. The first author is the lead graduate student / postdoc, the last author is the professor. Everyone involved understands this, and since (the majority of) graduate students work on ideas and projects designed by the professor before the student even entered the lab, executed with the professor's grant money, it's the professors work.

    As far as the credit: first author a paper in Science and get a post-doc in every lab you apply to.
  • by IdahoEv ( 195056 ) on Thursday April 07, 2005 @12:46AM (#12162886) Homepage
    afaik, telomerase breaks down telomeres, no matter what kind of cell you have.

    That's upside-down. Telomeres automatically shorten themselves with every cell division. Cells with very short telomeres die. This acts to limit cell divison, and probably exists (among other reasons) to limit runaway growth like cancer. Telomerase is not involved in this process at all, and in fact is not present in most normal cells.

    Telomerase acts to lengthen telomeres so that the cells in question can keep dividing. Telomerase exists likely so that cell which do need to divide forever (like germ cells and bone marrow cells) can overcome the telomere limit imposed on the rest of the body.

    afaik, telomerase breaks down telomeres, no matter what kind of cell you have.

    Again, that's backwards. Most cancer cells express telomerase where the normal cell wouldn't. This lengthens the telomeres and allows cell division to continue.

    Thus, inhibiting telomerase will re-impose the division limit on cancer cells, suppressing tumor growth. That's what this study claims to do.

    Summary:

    Telomere: passive cancer suppressor/division limiter present in every cell.

    Telomerase: enzyme to allow a few special-case cells to keep dividing despite telomeres.

    Cancer: often turns on telomerase in cell types where it should be dormant.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 07, 2005 @01:05AM (#12162976)
    Actually, as a born and bred American scientist I think that it is American culture that is destroying science in this country. Few students have the curiosity and persistence that research requires, and our instant gratification culture only makes this tendency worse. Also, there is now an active segment of society that is vocally opposed to much of science (the fundamentalists; christian, jewish, and islamic). Take this together with a general lack of performance and interest in science and mathematics relative to other populations, and you have a recipe for decreasing the role of science in American culture. I hope to hell that somebody keeps pushing the boundaries of knowledge and keeps it free and open, a long standard that America has followed and maintained. The point of science is also not to be a nationalistic endeavour, but rather a pursuit of knowledge. It's a meritocracy, and if that means that most science will be done in Asia by 2050, then good for them because they saw the opportunity, were interested, and worked for it. America did the same thing in the last century but our current theocratic leanings and lack of interest in science as a culture will be our downfall as the scientific elite. It's not too late to rescue it though, but I think it's unlikely.
  • then go home (Score:2, Insightful)

    by John Seminal ( 698722 ) on Thursday April 07, 2005 @02:32AM (#12163320) Journal
    my bet is that the in the end the korean guys will be forgotten and only the americans will be remembered...

    Seriously, go home to your own country and publish there. I am not saying this to be rude, and I know it sounds very politically incorrect.

    Here is the deal. The USA has a ton of money. They try and steal as much talent from foriegn countries as they can. Two things happen because of this. First, the USA benifits from the brains it gets. It is just like 100 years ago with natural resources from third world countries. Now it is with human talent. A good example would be baseball, and how we are "farming" the dominican republic and other latin american countries. The players come here because the most money is here. But imagine, just for one second, if those players said to hell with the money, we want national pride, our own leagues, our own system. The talent in the USA would go down, and the games in the forigen countries would get much more interesting. But I digress. This is about science. Imagine if, for example, all the brainy chinese people who have come to the USA for graduate studies in the sciences stayed in their own country. I think it is reasonable to assume some of these people will be good enough to add something to the progress of, say, wepons systems. Now the USA has one more means of power, of forcing other nations to do what they otherwise would not want to do, or to not do what they would be inclined to do. For example, China has been waiting for the right moment to take back Tiwan. They have not because of the USA.

    So my adivice to all the foriegners is GO HOME. The USA is not the great place you have been lead to believe. You can make just as good a life at home as here, probably better. But if you measure sucess by money, sure you will probably make some here. But if you measure sucess by happiness, then go home. The only bad thing about staying home is, sooner or later, the USA will find a reason to bomb your country. I think in the past decade we have bombed countries in over 4 continents, including europe. And it does not matter how much the rest of the world hates us, we keep doing it anyways.

  • Re:I wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Frogbert ( 589961 ) <{frogbert} {at} {gmail.com}> on Thursday April 07, 2005 @02:55AM (#12163379)
    Unless you live in the rest of the world that isn't America, then you could purchase beer legally.
  • by mr.mighty ( 162506 ) on Thursday April 07, 2005 @03:42AM (#12163531)
    Another theory is that it's not metabolically expensive, but that since we tend to reproduce between the ages of 15 and 35, as long as we don't die before then evolution doesn't give a crap.

    I once read a suggestion that if everyone waited to reproduce at age 40, without medical intervention, then after 3 or so generations humans would live a lot longer. Only those who managed to survive that long, and only women whose eggs managed to fight off the ravages of 40 years of life, would pass on their genes. Of course, there would be a lot fewer of us.
  • Re:denied (Score:2, Insightful)

    by vmardian ( 321592 ) on Thursday April 07, 2005 @05:08AM (#12163716) Homepage
    You are sick. Even if you believe for a second that the parent might be making it all up, just say nothing.

Anyone can make an omelet with eggs. The trick is to make one with none.

Working...