US Scientists Successfully 'Switch Off' Cancer Cells 52
iONiUM sends news that Mayo Clinic cancer researchers have developed a technique to reprogram cancer cells in a lab, essentially "turning off" their excessive cell growth.
That code was unraveled by the discovery that adhesion proteins — the glue that keeps cells together — interact with the microprocessor, a key player in the production of molecules called microRNAs (miRNAs). The miRNAs orchestrate whole cellular programs by simultaneously regulating expression of a group of genes (abstract). The investigators found that when normal cells come in contact with each other, a specific subset of miRNAs suppresses genes that promote cell growth. However, when adhesion is disrupted in cancer cells, these miRNAs are misregulated and cells grow out of control. The investigators showed, in laboratory experiments, that restoring the normal miRNA levels in cancer cells can reverse that aberrant cell growth.
I'll believe it when I see it.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Too often these promising studies generate all kinds of hype and then disappear shortly thereafter.
Re:I'll believe it when I see it.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, if you're a regular on Slashdot, it seems like we've been finding a cure for cancer and HIV for the last 20 years or so. Also, we will have a space elavator, fusion energy, flying cars and Linux on the desktop in just 5 more years!.
I realize this is amazingly complex stuff and that research takes time... but I really do hope that scientists are not just fishing for a Nobel price, and performing endless theoretical research without ever thinking about practical applications.
Re: (Score:2)
We [cancer.gov] have [healthline.com].
Re:I'll believe it when I see it.... (Score:5, Informative)
We have not found a cure for either. What we have found is more effective treatments that reduce the rate of mortality. Earlier detection of cancers allows doctors and surgeons to treat and operate on cancers before they have time to grow and spread. We can get to a point where we no longer detect cancerous cells in your body but you are by no means cured because the detection is not absolute.
Treatments for HIV has helped many people avoid having it develop into AIDS but we haven't cured HIV. The people going through treatments still have HIV and are still at risk of it developing into AIDS.
Re: (Score:3)
There was actually one person who was cured of HIV who received a marrow transplant from an HIV resistant donor.
Later two more people who had HIV with a non HIV resistant donor who showed no signs of the disease for about a year, and then it returned, and often when you hear about the first story, people confuse it with the second one where the two individuals recurred with the disease, and thus believe that the first guy still has HIV, but he doesn't.
It seems that the process of irradiating the body of its
Re: (Score:3)
The radiation therapy for the blood cancer kills off most of the marrow cells but not all of them. The remaining living cells could still harbor the HIV virus. They were unsure if the HIV was eradicated because the donation occurred and the donor's T-cells attacked the hosts marrow eradicating hiding places for HIV or if it was because the donor's T-Cell were mutated in a way that made them resistant to HIV. The radiation played a part but undoubtedly the transplant was the reason for it.
While it is a treat
Re: (Score:2)
There are two working definition for curing AIDS. One is the virus is gone, the second is you will die of something else. Both are valid and reasonable. We have cured AIDS according to the second one, but not yet the first one.
Re: (Score:2)
I personally only consider the first one a cure. Under the second definition you are still negatively impacted by the disease which is, to me, a perversion of the term cure. You may not be at risk of death or injury from the disease but your life is still negatively impacted by the disease by requiring you to upkeep treatment in order to avoid the death or injury.
Re: (Score:2)
You can consider whatever you want but the world won't and shouldn't expend the resources to meet your threshold when the other threshold is the only one that matters.
"Take this pill, you'll never experience side effects or symptoms."
"But... I still have the virus! I'm not cured!"
"I don't care. Take or leave the pill, whatever, it's the same to me."
"Uh...! okay."
Re: (Score:2)
I personally only consider the first one a cure. Under the second definition you are still negatively impacted by the disease which is, to me, a perversion of the term cure. You may not be at risk of death or injury from the disease but your life is still negatively impacted by the disease by requiring you to upkeep treatment in order to avoid the death or injury.
I personally consider both as cure because I have incurable problem: asthma.
That "negative impact" is much better than no treatment at all. I
Re: (Score:2)
We did cure AIDS. With treatment, nobody today suffers from AIDS. They remain HIV positive with very low viral load and no symptoms.
That is also the goal state for cancers, and we have successfully met the goal with some cancers; others are more difficult.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is about understanding, not yet about a cure. With more understanding comes a higher probability of finding something that can actually cure cancer. I don't know what you complain about here, not even the title is misleading.
Re: (Score:2)
Too often these promising studies generate all kinds of hype
This is largely the fault of institutional PR offices - university press releases are notorious for inflating the importance of even the most minor discovery, and their take is what gets reported. (Which isn't to say that scientists aren't complicit, but most of us have sufficient self-awareness to cringe when we read these articles.)
obligatory xkcd (Score:5, Informative)
yadda yadda https://xkcd.com/1217/ [xkcd.com]
cure of the day (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Rundown (Score:5, Interesting)
While the title is misleading click-bait, there is potential to this discovery. Here's a rundown:
We already knew that miRNA (which is a regulator/anti-virus peptide working on DNA) was silencing tumour-suppressing genes, this is very old stuff.
We already knew that re-introducing tumour suppressing proteins into cells that lack them would remove the carcinogenic behaviour.
We did not know that adhesive proteins (a part of the external cell stuff that is commonly called Extra-Cellular Matrix (ECM)) regulated miRNA in proximal cells. This is very interesting stuff, and leads to several intriguing possibilities. What if you flood a cancer site with adhesive proteins attached to a membrane connecting peptide? Will that upregulate tumour-suppressing proteins? What happens when you do this to healthy cells? If the response in heathy cells is low, this could be a universal "low-risk, unknown reward" medication for multiple cancer types, something cancer treatment has long lacked (all non-crazy-person treatments are dangerous to healthy tissue now).
So, while not the panacea the title suggests, it's certainly an intriguing discovery.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
What happens when you do this to healthy cells?
That's the pertinent question, all right. I know it's not the researchers' fault, but I can't help wishing that they'd tried injecting this into a few of those born-with-cancer lab rats before telling us about it, so we don't get all excited about it if it turns out to kill the patient in addition to the cancer. How much time and money would that have cost them, really?
I know, I know, that's not how science works. But we already know about a lot of things that can kill cancer cells if they're already in
Inevitable (Score:2)
"It took a few years," the wise one continued, "but once they polished a cure up, the clamor for smoking in public places built gloriously until a few years later, when those pollies removed the laws. They knew what side their bread was buttered on, which was the only reason they changed it in the first place."
"What a bizarre little period that was," we stated.
"Yes. It was."
"What did the fussbudgettry turn their attentions to, then?"
"Oh, I don't know. Anti 3D printed sex slave robots or something. They
Re: (Score:1)
Although this post is probably the dumbest nonsensical one I have read here lately, I would point out that cancer is only one of the downsides of smoking. The other issue is that it damages your lungs irrevocably and reduces your ability to breathe normally. It also adds to heart disease. But only fussbudgets care about such things.
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
O great! (Score:2)
When we asked about something liike this.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. You can't cure cancer for the same reason you can't cure the Common Cold. Because there is no "Common Cold" just as there is no "Cancer". What you have is dozens or hundreds of different things that cause very similar symptoms that get grouped together to be named "Cancer" just as there are hundreds of different viruses that can give you cold-like symptoms.
Cancer itself can be caused by genetic predisposition, viral infections, chemical exposure, radiation, excess exposure to the sun, or whathaveyo
Wrong discipline? (Score:1)
Microprocessors and regular expression, you sure this is biotech?
Grammar (Score:3)