Nanomaterials Used in Possible Cancer Cure 211
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."
Excellent (Score:3, Funny)
In a perfect world (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:In a perfect world (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:In a perfect world (Score:1)
Re:In a perfect world (Score:5, Informative)
Re:In a perfect world (Score:4, Informative)
"Inflammatory breast cancer (IBC), which can also be Stage stage III or Stage stage IV breast cancer, is the least common but most aggressive type of breast cancer.
While only 1 to 4 percent of newly diagnosed cases are IBC, 60 to 70 percent of all women with the disease do not live five years beyond their diagnosis. "
Re:In a perfect world (Score:4, Funny)
"Why'd you do that?" asks the surgeon.
"Well," the internist answers, "you use the least important part of your body to stop an elevator door."
They go into another wing, and approach another elevator. It's closing. So the surgeon sticks his head in.
RNAi Technology (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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.
Re:There's several catches (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:There's several catches (Score:1)
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?
Re:There's several catches (Score:2)
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.
Re:There's several catches (Score:2)
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.
Re:There's several catches (Score:2)
In my country, the government doesn't have enough money to fix the social disaster, and for a long time won't be spending money on medical research.
Private companies are small here, anyway.
That said, some unis here get EU money to work on some drugs, studying native plants, and stuff.
I wasn't saying that communism was the way, I was saying that my comment would be dismissed by some, because it resembles too much socialism, and US people are too afraid of that to study some of
Re:There's several catches (Score:2)
Re:RNAi Technology (Score:3, Interesting)
Go back and read some more on RNAi Technology (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:God I am pathetic (Score:2, Funny)
Re:God I am pathetic (Score:1)
Wish this were available Right Now. (Score:3, Insightful)
(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)
Re:You're insane (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:You're insane (Score:2)
Just have it euthanized for Christ sake.
Re:You're insane (Score:2)
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)
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)
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.
Re:You're insane (Score:2)
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)
(oooooooh, that was sick, but strangely amusing!).
Re:You're insane (Score:1, Offtopic)
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:You're insane (Score:2)
Re:You're insane (Score:2)
Re:You're insane (Score:2)
Re:You're insane (Score:1, Funny)
You're an idiot.
and in your case - You're a fucking idiot.
Re:You're insane (Score:2)
Re:You're insane (Score:2)
Re:Wish this were available Right Now. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Wish this were available Right Now. (Score:2)
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'
Re:Wish this were available Right Now. (Score:2)
Mice and Men (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Mice and Men (Score:1)
Re:Mice and Men (Score:2, Funny)
Nanomaterials (Score:4, Funny)
Why nanotechnology? (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
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.
Re:Why nanotechnology? (Score:2)
Only after the accumulation of a series
Re:Why nanotechnology? (Score:2)
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
Venture capital funding or IPO? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Venture capital funding or IPO? (Score:1)
I've been getting junk emails on how to cure that. If you let Slashdot show your email unobfuscated, you'd get them, too.
Why is this even necessary? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Why is this even necessary? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd like to see your reference...I've never heard of that position.
Re:Why is this even necessary? (Score:1, Insightful)
Please post links or references, or else I will have to ask that you be ignored as a complete kook.
Re:Why is this even necessary? (Score:2)
This presumes the medical journals will accept the articles. Despite opinions to the contrary, not all professionally done research reports will be accepted, if it's contrary to what the particular j
Re:Why is this even necessary? (Score:2)
Re:Why is this even necessary? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why is this even necessary? (Score:5, Funny)
In which case it would most definitely be impossible for cancer to form.
The technique works!
Re:Why is this even necessary? (Score:1)
is approximately 7.38 which is slightly alkaline.
Tis true however that if you deviate from that
number by a few tenths of a pH unit - you daid...
Re:Why is this even necessary? (Score:2)
One of the ways that this occurs is with regular consumption of yellow apple cider vinegar. For some reason the acids in it metabolize to an alkaline form.
And your statement is not true because there are lots of people that are alkaline rather than acidic. One example being those people who find vinegar and other ac
Re:Why is this even necessary? (Score:2)
Hey, that works too! :)
Re:Why is this even necessary? (Score:1)
from an alkaline [naturallydirect.net] cure site. Notice the supplementation line. Not quit cure worthy.
Re:Why is this even necessary? (Score:1, Flamebait)
He is right. (Score:2)
Re:Why is this even necessary? (Score:3, Insightful)
I am not claiming that's a fake, I find what you are saying very interesting, but I'd never heard about it!
There seems to be plenty of data but the jury is still out:
Google: cancer+alkaline+PH+balance [google.com]
Great links. (Score:4, Informative)
Great links. Basically various groups of people trying to sell something [healingdaily.com] and various other groups trying to shut them down [fda.gov].
Not exactly "research."
--MarkusQ
Re:Great links. (Score:1)
*shrug* All I did was provide a Google link. I never said the data was any good.
Not you--I meant the people claiming this was real (Score:2)
I wasn't talking about you per se (though I can see how it might have been read that way); posting a google link is mostly harmless. But the people claiming this is "established"? Or a reason to abondon real research? C'mon.
--MarkusQ
I feel this is the real answer to solving cancer ! (Score:3, Informative)
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)
- 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
Re:Science.Slashdot is dying. (Score:1)
Erm, I'm not giving anyone ideas. Really, I'm not.
Re:Science.Slashdot is dying. (Score:1)
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
Re:Science.Slashdot is dying. (Score:3, Informative)
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)
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:1, Flamebait)
Re:Science.Slashdot is dying. (Score:4, Interesting)
But, the reason to read
We're getting there (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Previously people have shown that
Re:We're getting there (Score:2)
FOR SALE. One slightly used "insightful" post for Slashdot science threads. Guarant
Polymeric source? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Polymeric source? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Polymeric source? (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Nanomaterials Used in Possible Cancer Cure (Score:1, Redundant)
oh. wait.
is it?
Source Article (Score:5, Informative)
Well actually (Score:1)
Re:Well actually (Score:1)
OK, it cures cancer, BUT! (Score:1)
What? You aren't?
not Diamond Age (Score:4, Insightful)
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".
Cancer Cure? No Body Heard Of Royal Rammond Rife. (Score:1)
Re:Cancer Cure? No Body Heard Of Royal Rammond Rif (Score:1)
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 (Score:1)
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.
Abraxane has already received FDA approval (Score:2)
First artificial virus? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:how is it different from drugs? (Score:1)
Re:how is it different from drugs? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:How important is this? (Score:2)
Re:How important is this? (Score:1)
Re:How important is this? (Score:2)
Re:These kinds of stories are starting to bug me.. (Score:2, Insightful)
That's certainly positive evidence, if not proof. Used in combination with treatments like chemo, you've got a good regimen.
Normally, the idea of chemo is to hopefully kill cancer cells faster than they're being produced. Something like this could halt the production, allowing for much faster elimination of cancerous mass, and possibly even a reduction in chemo dose.
Re:These kinds of stories are starting to bug me.. (Score:1)
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.
Re:These kinds of stories are starting to bug me.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Nanotech will grow exponentially just like electronics (expect some Moore Law regarding nanotech to appear soon). Problem is, exponential growth rates are VERY SLOW on the beginnings.
But wait in 10 or 15 years when nanotubes manufacturing is completely understood and industrialized.
mmm mods on crack again? (Score:1)
Re:Whitebox Enterprise Linux News (Score:1)
Not to mention the fact that noone really cares!