Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Science

Nanomaterials Used in Possible Cancer Cure 211

Posted by timothy from the dern-fancy-doodads dept.
Moiche writes "Medical researchers at CalTech and the Children's Hospital in Los Angeles have successfully inhibited cancer growth in mice by wrapping engineered RNA in nanomaterials and introducing them into the bloodstream. Two polymers and a special coating allow the therapeutic RNA to enter the cancer cell and release the therapeutic RNA payload. The new technique has slowed or prevented the development of secondary tumors in lab mice with Ewing's sarcoma. Further testing is planned on humans, and with other cancers. The Diamond Age seems closer, day by day."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nanomaterials Used in Possible Cancer Cure More

Nanomaterials Used in Possible Cancer Cure

Comments Filter:

  • Excellent (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 08, 2005 @11:35PM (#12473447)
    So now, nanobots not only can defeat the Borg, but they can also cure cancer. W00t!

  • In a perfect world (Score:5, Interesting)

    by thundercatslair ( 809424 ) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @11:38PM (#12473469)
    A good friend of mine found out today that she has inflammatory breast cancer (IBC). I would like to belive that a technology like this could help her, but I don't think that she will ever get that chance.

    • Re:In a perfect world (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Hey, the article say they were treating mice. I've heard plenty of these stories, I lost count years ago. Every month there's some fantastic new scientific development in cancer research, almost always involving mice or rats, or pigs or some animal other than human beings.

      Cancer researchers should keep quiet till they've found a fucking cure. Frederick Banting didn't stir up media attention 20 years before he discovered insulin with crazy stories, "Hey, diabetics, just hold on for another few years.. I'm a
      • This would be a fantastic idea if it weren't for the fact that the publicity stirs up much needed funding for the research that would lead to human clinical trials. Also, keep in mind that only about 1 in 10 molecular agents that make it to clinical trials actually make it to market. But hey . . . I guess we shouldn't talk about any of the possibilities until then, right?

    • Re:In a perfect world (Score:5, Informative)

      by punchie1 ( 882511 ) <punchie1@msn.com> on Monday May 09, 2005 @01:16AM (#12473961)
      I am a medical oncologist and wanted to clear up the fact that inflammatory breast cancer is the worst type of breast cancer to have. Very aggressive treatment can get it under control but it has a very high rate of relapse. I hate being the bearer of bad news, but your friend should make sure that she is receiving state of the art combined modality therapy.

  • RNAi Technology (Score:5, Informative)

    by Xeroc ( 877174 ) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @11:38PM (#12473471)
    This uses RNAi technology - that is the RNA they deploy is complementary to the RNA produced in Cancer Cells, and so they complement with the cancer RNA into a double-stranded piece of RNA - which screams virus - and the cell destroys it. Therefore stopping the growth of the cancer.

    This method of using the nanomaterials to protect it and enable it to enter the cancer cells surely looks very promising!

    • There's several catches (Score:5, Interesting)

      by PIPBoy3000 ( 619296 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @12:15AM (#12473683)
      The tricky part is that each individual cancer must have a particular treatment created for it. It's not a generic cancer cure, but rather one that can be targeted against certain very specific types of cancer. They'd need to know exactly what's genetically wrong with the cell in order to cure it.

      Not only that, but if the iRNA sequence not only matches the problem RNA but also a healthy one, you could potentially be interfering with normal gene function. That's why they targeted Ewing's sarcoma, a cancer that "provides a clear and unambiguous target".

      Finally, this doesn't seem to actually cure the cancer, but rather puts it into submission. Think of the cancer cell's nucleus spitting out bogus RNA, only to be chopped up by iRNA that matches it. You'd need to take the treatment essentially forever. Drug companies could make billions.
      • The tricky part is that each individual cancer must have a particular treatment created for it. It's not a generic cancer cure, but rather one that can be targeted against certain very specific types of cancer.

        But that's true of most cancer treatments. You don't just get generic chemotherapy, you get a specific chemo regimen for your specific type of cancer. What works on one type doesn't work on others - which is why some cancers have 80+% survival rates and others are more around 10%.

        It is importan


      • Drug companies could make billions.

        Isn't potentially saving the lives of thousands of people worth it?
        Or does your concept of economics require people to die so that people do not make too much money?
        • There's nothing inherently evil about drug companies making lots of money. In an ironic sort of way, this may actually increase funding in comparison to treatments that could truly be called "cures".

          In some ways, this approach is safer than gene therapy for cancer [nih.gov]. Since you don't tinker with the cell's DNA, the iRNA treatment can be stopped if you start accidentally supressing critical RNA. Modifying DNA is permanent.
      • You'd need to take the treatment essentially forever. Drug companies could make billions.

        But that's not a flaw of the treatment. It's just a flaw of the regulations, or the current state of affairs regarding that sort of stuff.
        Maybe it wold be nice to rethink all that stuff about companies making such big investments, and then making lots of money out of them, which rules out any cheap treatment.
        Maybe governments could make the investments, and then everybody could make the drugs just for the real cost.
      • Given that most cancer treatments basically consist of poisoning yourself in the hopes that the cancer dies before you do, being able to completely and reliably stop a cancer from spreading during treatment seems like a big bonus.

    • Re:RNAi Technology (Score:3, Interesting)

      by xplenumx ( 703804 )
      Saying that RNAi makes a cell scream "Virus!", and thus destroying the RNA (or cell - you were grossly unclear) is a grossly misleading. RNAi 'knocks down' a gene by complementing the RNA target, leading to the degredation of the target RNA thus knocking down protein expression. Plants have been shown to use RNAi to resist viruses, but that hasn't been shown for mammalian systems (we use toll-like receptors (TLR-3 for dsRNA and TLR-8 for ssRNA specifically) to recognise RNA and induce an interferon respons
    • I can't believe that this comment was scored 5,Informative. It is totaly misleading. The RNA:RNA hybrid does not scream "virus". In fact it goes under the "virus radar" and does not elicit the interferone responce. A more acurate description would be that it hijacks a mechanism that is used in generation of small regulatory RNAs (micro or miRNAs) and results in cleavage of the targed. The biggest achievement of this research is the delivery system which looks very efficient and is the best alternative to vi

  • Wish this were available Right Now. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by danamania ( 540950 ) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @11:39PM (#12473479)
    Today I've booked my pet mouse, muis [danaquarium.com] in for surgery to remove her third tumour. The previous surgeries have been successful, but it would be ace not to have her go through a general anaesthetic again.

    (I realise this is an important development for fixing human cancers, but as a pet owner - it would be great to have these working fixes for the little ones it's been demonstrated on!)

    • You're insane (Score:3, Insightful)

      by flyingsquid ( 813711 )
      It's a mouse. In the wild, mice have to deal with an insane number of predators- cats, hawks, owls, snakes and so on. It's not a pretty world, and a mouse is unlikely to survive more than a couple years. The result is that natural selection only acts to increase the survivability of the mouse for the first couple of years. There's no point in selecting for a gene to help a mouse live to ten years, or even five years, because the odds of that gene ever being useful are pretty low when most mice get killed in

      • Re:You're insane (Score:3, Insightful)

        by porcupine8 ( 816071 )
        WTF, its a mouse. . . . They're just pets.

        Having a pet means taking on complete responsibility for a life. You have a responsibility to minimize that life's suffering. If you don't want that responsibility, don't get a pet.

        That said, I would personally probably not get more than one surgery for a recurring tumor in a small rodent - I think that the surgeries are likely causing more suffering than necessary, and I would probably just let the second tumor grow until it was obviously causing problems an

        • Taking responsibility for the life of pet also means not putting it through unnecessary suffering for your own peace of mind.

          Just have it euthanized for Christ sake.
          • Yes - did I, or did I not say that I would do just that if a tumor came back?

            One surgery (on some types of tumors) can add months or even years to a small animal's life, healthy and happy - I would say that's worth the few days of discomfort from the surgery. If the tumor comes back after that, though, it's just going to keep coming back, and the animal is just going to be living a life of tumor-surgery-tumor-surgery.

      • Re:You're insane (Score:2, Interesting)

        by weighn ( 578357 )
        shit, this nation needs to get a grip and get a fucking sense of perspective. They're just pets

        You nasty, brutal, (but) realistic bastard.

        You have managed to capture the essence of everything that I can't stand about myself.

        Thank you. I am now a more sensitive, kinder, loving person.
        Peace.

        • Re:You're insane (Score:4, Insightful)

          by flyingsquid ( 813711 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @03:19AM (#12474438)
          You nasty, brutal, (but) realistic bastard.

          Honestly, I do feel like a total mean prick bastard for posting this; I could have said the same thing and filed some edges off, I'm sorry. And a hypocrite, since in my life I've invested a lot of emotion in small animals, futile causes, and stuff that does nothing to help the starving Third World.

          But what bugs me is that this society seems to have an unhealthy preoccupation with putting death off forever, at any cost. At some point we need to accept the inevitable. Where does it end; do we keep Fido hooked up to feeding tubes in a persistent vegetative state?

          And what bugs me is that we seem to forget that we have so much wealth and power and there are so many who don't have jack. Many if not most pets in the United States have a higher quality of life than most human beings in the world: clean water, ample food, shelter, medical care. Isn't that screwed up? What would happen if we spent the same amount on helping other human beings as we did on pet food? It makes me want to be a communist... except they tried that already, and it didn't even work as well as this crazy system.

          • "And what bugs me is that we seem to forget that we have so much wealth and power and there are so many who don't have jack."

            Your not alone. The hard part is braking out of the bubble when just about everything you encounter througout your day sucks you back in. Particularly people who just don't give a damn about anything that is not directly in front of their face, and then only if it can help them get ahead [this is not directed at the grand parent poster, btw].

            Some outrage is in order I think. As l

      • Win-Win (Score:4, Funny)

        by TapeCutter ( 624760 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @05:55AM (#12475186) Journal
        Feed the mouse to the starving Africans.

        (oooooooh, that was sick, but strangely amusing!).

      • Re:You're insane (Score:1, Offtopic)

        by thelandp ( 632129 )
        I cannot believe the parent post got modded insightful.

        It's a mouse... unlikely to survive more than a couple years...So you're engaged in a futile war against death
        I think you're missing the point here - they are going to transition this research to use in humans, mice are just a stepping stone in the research.

        The other thing... WTF, its a mouse.
        *sigh*, repitition is the last resort of someone without a cogent argument.

        My family's dog died ... and I've accepted that
        Sad for you, but what does th

    • Re:Wish this were available Right Now. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by justins ( 80659 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @12:16AM (#12473693) Homepage Journal
      (I realise this is an important development for fixing human cancers, but as a pet owner - it would be great to have these working fixes for the little ones it's been demonstrated on!

      Unfortunately, the treatment is likely to be insanely expensive for humans. There won't be a mouse treatment because recouping the costs of developing the treatment would be effectively impossible.
      • Unfortunately, the treatment is likely to be insanely expensive for humans. There won't be a mouse treatment because recouping the costs of developing the treatment would be effectively impossible.

        It would, yes. My post was just a bit of wishful thinking & idealism because it's on my mind at the moment - The world isn't meant to be an always-fair and always-just place, but sometimes it's nice to dream.

        (although the removal of a mouse tumour is damned cheap when compared to human surgery. $50 and it'

  • Mice and Men (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 08, 2005 @11:39PM (#12473483)
    Mice may save mankind again!

  • Nanomaterials (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 08, 2005 @11:41PM (#12473495)
    The smallest buzzword ever created by Man

  • Why nanotechnology? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Husgaard ( 858362 )
    I wonder why they apply some kind of nanotechnology to get the RNA into the cells.

    Why not piggyback on nature and use some relatively harmless virus for transporting the RNA into the cells? Would it be too hard to create the virus with the RNA, or to grow the virus without it mutating into something not containing the RNA?

    • Re:Why nanotechnology? (Score:4, Informative)

      by ozborn ( 161426 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @12:05AM (#12473624)
      Molecular biologists have been trying to engineer a safe, reliable, effecient method of drug delivery to selected cells for decades. This includes modifying viruses, poxviruses, herpes viruses, adenoviruses,retroviruses, etc.. but they all have problems. Creating the viruses isn't difficult, nor is mutation a serious problem. What is difficult is selectively targetting ONLY the cells you want, getting ALL (or most) of them with a sufficient quantity of whatever agent you are delivering. That's hard.
      The big deal about this result isn't RNAi (which people have known about now for several years) but the success in hijacking the transferrin transporter to bring the RNAi in.
      • As good as all this sounds like for killing cancerous cells, i think the aim of future research should focus more on stem cell technolgies. Cancer doesn't just appear one day, well unless ur genome was corrupt to begin with as in the case with some retinoblastoma patients. Cancer is a usually a slow and silent progression until the point where it explodes out of control. Normally your body does a pretty good job at screening for genetic anomalies during the cell cycle.
        Only after the accumulation of a series
        • de Grey (the theoretical biogerontologist working on aging) has suggested that we shouldn't even bother fixing DNA damage, and I agree with him.

          His point is, essentially: we don't need to fix DNA damage. We have an utter *#%!load of cells in our body, and the vast majority of them have perfect genomes. The body's standard way of dealing with really bad mutations is perfect - kill the cell, and let another cell divide to replace it.

          The big problem that has is when the "kill the cell" mechanism fails. A lot
    • Using a virus is sooo 19 hundreds.

      OK, I'd love for there to be a cure for cancer, but I suspect that more likely this is just the perfect bunch of buzzwords to hype for funding, IPO or whatever. nanoxxx: tick; cure for cancer: tick.

      The last cure-for-cancer stock I watched were Cell Pathways. Lovely rollercoaster stock. Perfect for pump and dump of IPO share options etc.

  • It is well established that if one has a alkaline PH-balance it is impossible for cancers to form. Why this is necessary when simple nutrition and proper readjustment of PH will prevent cancer in the first place I am not sure, other than I suppose having people be healthy in the first place doesn't make money for pharmaceutical and medical technology developers, while high-tech developments of Rube Goldberg-type devices do.

  • I feel this is the real answer to solving cancer ! (Score:3, Informative)

    by zymano ( 581466 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @12:04AM (#12473613)
    nanocancer has it's own government website. [cancer.gov]

    I believe in this more than virus gene therapy.

    You can't let the immune system interfere!

    Good stuff. I keep up to date on this .

  • Science.Slashdot is dying. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This discussion will, most likely, not really go anywhere. Slashdot simply doesn't have many persons these days who are particularly informed on the sciences. What this discussion will contain is:

    - Two people who really and actually understand the science and make interesting deep posts
    - 15 people who sort of kind of understand the science behind this and make comments which are interesting and good points-- but contain misinformed elements
    - 30 people making jokes

    Discussions on science.slashdot fall into
    • That looks like the basis of a template post, like the *-is-dying ones.

      Erm, I'm not giving anyone ideas. Really, I'm not.
    • - Two people who really and actually understand the science and make interesting deep posts - 15 people who sort of kind of understand the science behind this and make comments which are interesting and good points-- but contain misinformed elements

      So, why don't you go hang around the purescience.org forums. Why are you bitching ? Disappointed that leagues of nobel prize winning scientists aren't flocking to slashdot.org ?

      Let's just drop all scientific articles from slashdot period, we wouldn't wa

    • Slashdot simply doesn't have many persons these days who are particularly informed on the sciences.

      Although I agree with much of your post, the above statement is *patently* false -- speaking from the academic medical community, I can name several professors, postdocs, and physicians within my university that follow science.slashdot on a regular basis.

      Additionally, keep in mind that plenty of people who are specialists simply don't comment because the linked article doesn't provide enough detail. As a

      • Re:Science.Slashdot is dying. (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Thank you for your response.

        Although I agree with much of your post, the above statement is *patently* false -- speaking from the academic medical community, I can name several professors, postdocs, and physicians within my university that follow science.slashdot on a regular basis.

        Well, okay, but I was speaking about those who post comments, not those among the lurkers. The second group has always been very different on slashdot than the first.

        Additionally, keep in mind that plenty of people who are

    • Re:Science.Slashdot is dying. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by hung_himself ( 774451 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @03:08AM (#12474396)
      You make some very good points except there are a lot more science experts here than you might think. I think most of them are lurkers who don't post much. One reason has already been mentioned. Scientists don't really like to comment on things unless they have RTFA and the background and thought about it which is a bit of work even if the topic is in your field of expertise. Secondly, some of the issues brought up are really very complex and it takes a lot of effort to try to give enough background so that the comment makes sense to the non-expert. A third reason is one that you touch upon - the amount of noise - i.e. why would anyone make the effort if they are going to be shouted down?

      But, the reason to read /. is not really for science news - you can read Nature or Science for that - but for the unfiltered noise itself. This is one of the best places to get opinions of a large population of fairly intelligent non-experts on current topics of science. While there are a few zealots, I find the /. community as whole to be very receptive to science. They help identify areas where scientists need to spend more time and energy communicating ideas and countering FUD.

  • We're getting there (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MicroBerto ( 91055 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @12:12AM (#12473658)
    Someday, we're going to think this was quite a crude process, but we're getting there! We're learning how to "program" the body. We're starting to learn how to code ourselves, and with some more breakthroughs, modern medicine will forever be changed just as penicillin changed the world.

    During our lifetimes, it will be extremely exciting to see all of this happen. The scary part is how far we take it. Bad things can come of it too.

    • Re:We're getting there (Score:2, Insightful)

      by kim69 ( 707440 )
      siRNA is the way forward - the big deal here is not the possible cure for cancer, but a delivery route for the RNAi into cells. siRNA is the future of pharmacolology, a specific knockdown of enzymes and proteins without non-specifically inhibiting similar enzymes. The problem with siRNA, which we use very effectively in cell cultures by transfection techniques, is getting the large RNA molecules accross the fatty cell membrane and into the cell where is can do its work.

      Previously people have shown that

    • Someday, we're going to think this was quite a crude process, but we're getting there! We're learning how to [sloppy analogy for complex scientific technique]. With some more breakthroughs, [branch of science] will forever be changed just as penicillin changed the world.

      During our lifetimes, it will be extremely exciting to see all of this happen. The scary part is how far we take it. Bad things can come of it too.

      FOR SALE. One slightly used "insightful" post for Slashdot science threads. Guarant

  • Polymeric source? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by pbi ( 760093 )
    Strange that they are using PEO and cyclodextrin as a "encapsulating" polymeric source for the transferrin. I would think that PEO would be not very good choice for living cells (cancerous or non-cancerous). If the body needs to digest this polymer, PEO has a history of problems with its by-products. Most of the by-products are ethanol, which would kill the cells. Probably callogen or similar forms would be better. Perhaps, they are already using similar types of polymers.

    • Re:Polymeric source? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by suchire ( 638146 )
      They're using PEG, and it's known to be fairly inert. It just diffuses out of cells after the chain breaks down, since it's small and nonpolar.
    • Are you sure that you don't mean PEG?

      Please see

      http://www.nektar.com/content/advanced_peg [nektar.com]

      This stuff could be used to attach to the surface
      of transferrin and may have beneficial effects on
      it. Also I am a little skeptical of cyclodextrin
      encapsulating transferrin. Cyclodextrin is a
      donut shaped molecule with a fairly small cavity.
      It might hold say cholesterol, but not
      a protein.

      I assume you meant collagen, in your post. This has its own problems because, depending on its
      source, it can be immunogenic.
  • still no cure for cancer...

    oh. wait.

    is it?

  • Source Article (Score:5, Informative)

    by dmaduram ( 790744 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @01:01AM (#12473899) Homepage
    Just as a fyi, the press release for Hu et. al.'s research can be found at the American Association for Cancer Research proceedings [aacr.org] page -- it's more technical than the Economist article linked above, but is quite informative.
  • Don't get your hope too high. There is no foolproof against tumor cells,yet. This method of deploying therapeutic RNA relies on transferrin of tumor cells. Sooner or later, tumor cells will develop mechanisms or mutations so that they will not rely heavily on transferrins.
    • Ahh yes they cells can develope natural mutation but they will only occur in one person they don't spread like normal infections so for all but the most unlucky individuals it won't be a problem as we will have multiple attack stratergies.
  • ...But can these nanomaterials run Linux, that's the real question I think we're all asking ourselves.

    What? You aren't?

  • not Diamond Age (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cahiha ( 873942 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @02:55AM (#12474357)
    Sorry, but this is standard molecular biology and polymer chemistry, the way it's been done for decades. It has nothing to do with "nanotechnology".

    Nanotechnology, as in the Diamond Age, refers to a new class of self-replicating molecular devices. Nanotechnology was overhyped, has delivered no scientific insights, and has been a complete failure. That is why its proponents are now going around and trying to relabel work in material science and biology, work that happens to be at the right scale, as "nanotechnology".
  • Royal Rammond Rife Cured Cancer. if any body can post vaild docuemented evidence of why he never do it, I have famliy that have died from the big C, I understand the planet is over populated an all but it is a crime to hold back Rife technology, Please read the below, Please do your own research, Please don't post a stupid reply saying "do you think if we had the cure they would not release it". Any way the facts speak for them self, This guy was a proper scientist, able to work year after year, the bottom
    • err - why does this remind me of Sixth Column [wikipedia.org] by Robert Heinlen

      Not wishing to openly mock your post, but if you search on his name all your returns are sycophantic product sites with little or no technical content. Surely some rich devotee would have put up some cash for an independent research project? If you have a link to any independent research, please post it, as I'd like to read it.

      I seem to recall reading somewhere ages ago about some banned weapon that focussed two beams of some EM at slightly d

  • The Diamond Age seems closer, day by day.

    I like that: The Diamond Age. Gonna Google it since I don't know the reference and am guessing it's a book I'd really enjoy.
  • http://www.abraxisoncology.com/products.htm [abraxisoncology.com] uses albumin "nanotechnology" to transport the drug to the tumor with fewer side effects.
  • Ok, let me see: a genetic payload designed to disrupt normal cell operations, a coating designed to protect/hide the payload until it is injected into the cell. Isn't that a virus? Is this the first artificial virus? (Excepting the modified natural virii which have been used for decades for medical research).

Slashdot Top Deals

Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.

Close