Scientists Unlock Reasons Cancer Spreads 293
* * Beatles-Beatles writes "Instead of a cell just breaking off from a tumor and traveling through the bloodstream to another organ where it forms a secondary tumour, or metastasis, researchers in the United States have shown that the cancer sends out envoys to prepare the new site."
You have got to be kidding me (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You have got to be kidding me (Score:3, Insightful)
What's the big deal, here? (Score:2)
So he's getting something out of it, and he's got an alterior motive. So what? Is it really hurting the way you browse the site? You have to admit that this is a newsworthy story. It's not like he's submitting nonsense and then reaping rewards for it.
If you have that big a problem, don't click on his stories, and don't follow his links. Otherwise
The truth about * *Beatles-Beatles (Score:5, Informative)
Then please reread my earlier comment about this guy:
Ok, let's have a look at his george-harrison.info website. Aha, maybe the links at the bottom of the page? Yes, I see: http://george-harrison.info/reciprocal-links.html [george-harrison.info] [george-harrison.info].
Sooo, what may be on that page? Quoting:
Looking at the link list (just a small excerpt):
HTH!
Re:The truth about * *Beatles-Beatles (Score:2)
Re:You have got to be kidding me (Score:2)
I have a question about this: how is what he's doing functionally any different than if I were to comment on the artical (as I'm doing right now) and change my URL for every comment? Now that I think about it, how is what he's doing worse than what I'm doing, since I have a URL of my own attached to this comment? Is it because he keeps changing his URL? Would I be guilty of the same offense if I changed my URL to one that isn't associated w
Re:You have got to be kidding me (Score:2)
Re:You have got to be kidding me (Score:5, Informative)
The domains are all registered to the same guy, Carl Fogle, who like all search engine spammers is a premier-league asshole who was apparently never taught that enlightened self interest is supposed to make the world a better place for everybody, not be an excuse for screwing over friends and neighbours who rely on a shared resource.
Re:You have got to be kidding me (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You have got to be kidding me (Score:2)
Re:You have got to be kidding me (Score:5, Insightful)
Beatles-Beatles is the solid, undeniable, irrefutable proof that the Slashdot editor system is broken. While great submissions are tossed daily, Beatles-Beatles is allowed to continue to abuse his articles on Slashdot to increase his Google PageRank.
Essentially Slashdot is actively promoting a spammer, at the expense of better articles.
Several possibilities come to mind. One; the Slashdot Editors have been bribed by said spammer. Two; the Slashdot editors are not bothering to proof read any articles. Three; The slashdot editors have simply stopped reading the article comments, where Beatles-Beatles has been critisised on numerous occassions. Four; The Slashdot Random Story Submission Selection System is broken. The reader can decide which of these is more likely.
In the era of Digg.com, I think the Slashdot editors should be doing more to justify the editor system. As it happens, Slashdot is becoming the prime example of why the editor system is inferior. I would like this to change, but the Slashdot Eds really just don't seem to care about the site anymore.
Still the comments are good.
Re:You have got to be kidding me (Score:3, Interesting)
Digg is great for articles, but the comments are generally awful. Slashdot has some editorial problems, but there are a ton of smart people who post comments here, which I find very valuable.
Re:You have got to be kidding me (Score:2, Funny)
Why, you're very welcome.
-/I'm part of the arrogant Slashdot crowd.
Back On Topic, arrogance never caused or spread cancer, unless you're a smoker.
Your point has been proven (Score:2, Interesting)
It's like pointing out the truth and being modded a liar for doing so.
vb
Re:You have got to be kidding me (Score:2)
Re:You have got to be kidding me (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, I will thank you the next time I google for something and the first few hits are all crap pages which where promoted through link spamming like **Beatles-Beatles does on the page he links to here. Have a look at his website, and follow the "reciprocal links" link at the bottom of his page.
Maybe you'll finally get a clue then!Now if we could just unlock the secrets behind... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Now if we could just unlock the secrets behind. (Score:2)
Imagine (Score:2, Funny)
I wonder if you can,
No need for greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...
<p> Just imagine a world without pagerank pirates like ** * Beatles Beatles *
Re:Imagine (Score:3, Funny)
sang the multi-millionaire from his Manhattan apartment
Use up the landing pads? (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe they can sythesize something which is able to bond to Fibronectin? If they flooded the bloodstream with it, it could use up all the landing pads and effectively block the cancer from attaching anywhere.
Kinda like a Denial of Service on a molecular level...?
Re:Use up the landing pads? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Use up the landing pads? (Score:2)
Now a good question would be, how did cancer, something that doesn't spread between people, come up with something that clever? I guess after enough mutations of the
Re:Use up the landing pads? (Score:2)
This is probably not that much of a mutation at all. I could see how this could be used in organ formation. The landing pad is built where a certain type of cell needs to cluster like liver cells. They clump and grow into a liver.
I am not
Re:Use up the landing pads? (Score:2)
When I read TFA I didn't find anything to suggest that this is case. Did you learn this from other sources, or is this supposition?
It seems to me that it is just as likely that these "landing pads" are usually a normal mechanism of health maintenance that has been subverted by the cancer. For example, it would not surprise me to learn that "landing pad" formation is a normal and important step in mending a broken bone (callus formation). The a
Re:Use up the landing pads? (Score:4, Informative)
Targeting such a widespread protein is not the answer, and is not the answer that researchers are looking at. Otherwise there would have been a large headline stating that anti-fibronectin drugs/antibodies cure metastisis.
Re:Use up the landing pads? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Use up the landing pads? (Score:2)
Gleevec happens to be the first FDA-approved kinase inhibitor. The field of kinase inhibitors for use in cancer is now quite large, although approval of new kinase ihibitor drugs has been slow.
Out of Brainpower (Score:2)
One problem that I know off the top of my head is that blocking fibronectin is going to impair mental function. Fibronectin is used in the brain to bind polysialic acid, a "grease for the neurons". So if you bind up the fibronectin, your neur
Obligatory M$ reference (Score:3, Funny)
w00t! (Score:5, Funny)
Ordinary Bone Marrow Cells vs Stem Cells (Score:5, Interesting)
"Stem cells from bone marrow can also, quite remarkably, give rise to non-marrow cells"
Do bone marrow cells exhibit pluripotent characteristics that lend them to the use metastasis puts them to?
Re:Ordinary Bone Marrow Cells vs Stem Cells (Score:2)
Evolution does tend to use what's at hand.
Re:Ordinary Bone Marrow Cells vs Stem Cells (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Ordinary Bone Marrow Cells vs Stem Cells (Score:2)
By the above is it then fair to say that teratoma [emedicine.com], ( "The best evidence suggests that most [teratoma] are due to abnormal differentiation of fetal germ cells that arise from the fetal yolk sac..." )..." made up of a variety of parenchymal cell types representative of more than a single germ layer, usual
The more we know, the more we know we don't know (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The more we know, the more we know we don't kno (Score:2)
Really funny (and I bet he would laugh too) and at times eerily zen-like
Re:The more we know, the more we know we don't kno (Score:2)
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.
The above is actually an old chestnut of management wisdom that Rummy picked up from his days in private industry. Rumsfeld wasn't being stupid or crazy, he was just being unoriginal.
Re:The more we know, the more we know we don't kno (Score:2)
It's actually a very profound observation, something along the lines of:
So there's things you know (We wanna build an airplane, around $10 mil each).
Things you think you know (It's likely going to cost $13 million)
things you know
Re:The more we know, the more we know we don't kno (Score:2, Interesting)
The things we don't know
We know,
But that direct and constrain our thinking anyway.
There are unknown known knowns,
The things we don't know
Even though we know
We know them.
These are things we think we know,
But we're way off base.
There are known known unknowns,
The things we know
We do not know,
Without realizing
We actually know them.
These are questions we keep asking
When the answers
Are staring us in the face.
There are also unknown unknown knowns,
The things we don't know
We know,
Bu
Link to the article (Score:4, Informative)
Forget Mars... Target Cancer! (Score:4, Insightful)
I've always thought the wiser thing would be for a President to proclaim that we shall cure cancer within the next decade. Rather than the tired old Moo... er, Mars thing.
Assuming validity to this story, it seems such a thing might be possible.
A nice side benefit is that the government money involved goes less into the military-industrial complex, and more into medical research. Yes, I know that there are still military applications to any such research... nevertheless it would be nice if the government's research money was targeted directly and explicitly at a benefit to humanity. A cure for cancer falls in that category.
Cancer research - what a novel idea!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Also... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Forget Mars... Target Cancer! (Score:2, Insightful)
It makes a difference.
KFG
Re:Forget Mars... Target Cancer! (Score:2, Insightful)
Once upon a time, a long time ago, I posted that I rather expect the cure for cancer, assuming there actually is one, will come from some entirely unexpected corner disconected from the massive cancer research projects.
Science is not an assembly line.
KFG
Re:Forget Mars... Target Cancer! (Score:2)
I'm not saying we should not do the research, but this may be a case where the journey is worth more than getting there.
Nixon beat you to it (Score:4, Informative)
Google "Nixon war on cancer" and see what you come up with. Sadly, it's an example of governmental hubris.
Go to Mars... Target Cancer! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Forget Mars... Target Cancer! (Score:3, Informative)
Been there. Done that. President Nixon launched a "War on Cancer" to find a cure within a decade [www.snh.cc].
Somebody think of the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm recycling a comment from another AC in another Scuttlemonkey/**Beatles-Beatles post. This guy's getting worse than Roland Picklepail:
Am I the only person who has noticed the numerous stories that get posted by *--Beatles-Beatles? Am I also the only person who has noticed that the link used in is name is a constantly changing URL (depending on the story) with pointers to various scammy sites? Is it not obvious what he's doing? He's using the awesome PageRank of slashdot do promote his sites based on searches that have the word Beatles in them.
It's a small price to pay for free advertising. Find a story, summarize it in 5 minutes, post to slashdot, and get a pagerank boost that advertisers would pay hundreds (or maybe thousands) for. (Text links on high-ranking sites is big business - just ask oreilly).
Slashdot should at least put a ref=nofollow in the links to submitters (or better yet, only link the submitter's name to his/her user page).
In closing, a quick bit of WHOIS shows that all the sites linked by **B-B are registered to Carl Fogle. Carl, cut this crap out.
Finally, a good reason to 'kill the messenger' (Score:2)
I see similarities (Score:2)
I think this is how Windows spreads also. Check out this mildly re-written version of the above:
"These proprietary APIs provide attachment factors for the 3rd party applications to implant and nurture them. It causes them not only to bind but to proliferate. Onc
We are fighting a War (Score:2, Insightful)
And we are losing.
The language of cells (Score:5, Informative)
Cells have a language that they use to communicate. They communicate with the cells in the other tissues around them. They communicate with the blood cells as they pass by. They communicate with the various cells of the immune system. This communication is constant. Every cell is constantly emitting and absorbing a matrix of cytokines, lymphokines, and other chemokines. It is from the interpretation of all of these different levels that a cell adapts and responds to its environment.
Cancerous cells are simply responding to their environment. In many ways a cancerous cell is malfunctioning. In many ways the set of chemokines which it emits acknowledges that it's malfunctioning. In a body with a healthy immune system the immune response is properly recruited and the cancerous cells are put out of their misery. This is why babies can grow so quickly with so little chance for deformity. The cells are communicating properly and the body ensures that any malfunctioning cells are removed.
In a cancer, when a cell begins malfunctioning, the immune system is not notified of the problem. The surrounding cells, when exposed to the proper levels of the signaling molecules, may be programmed to imitate the same behavior. I believe that this is part of a larger process that's supposed to work to increase the intensity of the signal and attract the immune system. If the immune system is not properly recruited, though, then the originating cells divide and become more and more degenerate and the increased level, intensity, and garbled nature of the signal aggravates even more cells in the area. When sufficiently aggravated without any response to attenuate the signals from the malfunctioning cells then more and more proper cells will begin to show signs of chemical stress and become cancerous, necrotic, or apoptotic.
In some cases the original cancerous cell may not be technically malfunctioning. That cell may be responding appropriately to surrounding tissue which has become numb and nonfunctional. This can be seen in bone cancers where the osteoblast count is at extreme low levels. The remaining osteoblasts are tired, overworked, stressed, and more than a little frightened by the absence of their comrades. Those cells begin exhibiting chemical signs of that stress meant to recruit the repropagation of other osteoblasts. If the situation isn't remedied, however, it's very easy to think that the osteoblast is evilly trying to metastasize. In tissues of high cell censity (kidney, pancreas, stomach, intestine, brain) it's most likely that the cancer is a result of a malfunctioning immune system. In a tissue of low cell density (bone) it's most likely that the cancer is a result of a deficiency in the tissue itself--maybe a logical sign of natural aging.
At any given point in time any one of us has a number of cancerous cells in our body. They're not sentiently floating around looking for tissue to victimize--they're doing what they've been programmed to do: survive.
The real question has always been: Why isn't the immune system responding appropriately? In most cancers the immune system is responding improperly or flat-out ignoring the problem. The studies of immunologists on the pathways of intercell signaling is very important research but sorely underfunded because research and study rarely leads to quick quarterly profit. There are easily hundreds of different intercell signaling molecules all tailored for their own specific message. The field is so complex that it's very difficult to quantify progress in the eyes of the business managers who have no conceptual understanding of the task or the technology.
Re:The language of cells (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The language of cells (Score:3, Insightful)
Why does it have to be a benefit, why can't evolution sometimes make a bad turn, am I alone in thinking that not every mutation has to be a good one.
PS. I still prefer the old meaning of "Begging the question"
Re:The language of cells (Score:3, Insightful)
Why does it have to be a benefit, why can't evolution sometimes make a bad turn, am I alone in thinking that not every mutation has to be a good one.
If it was one single mutation, that had no benefits except it causes cancer... in each generation, part of the bearers of the mutation would die before they had bred, and each generation the percentage of people(*) having the mutation would go down. It's just extremely unlikely that such a mutation would spread to affect the whole of humanity.
What's much mo
Re:The language of cells (Score:3, Informative)
This post responds to the entire thread above.
The nature of genetic diseases is such that a even though there may be no survival benefits to a certain trait, it is propagated in the gene pool for multiple generations until it either mutates into a useful trait, or is finally selected out of the population. The genetics of cancer is such that cancers fall into two broad classes. Quick, very deadly cancers of the young, which come from usually a single serious mutation, and slower cancers of the old, which
Re:The language of cells (Score:2)
Re:The language of cells (Score:2)
1. It isn't a foregone conclusion that there even has to be an evolutionary advantage to having cancer, as evolution tends to not have much bearing on post-reproductive-aged organisms. There clearly would be a selection against organsisms who have pre-reproductive cancer, as they are less likely to reproduce.
2. One possible evolutionary advantage of cancer is that it gets rid of old parents, thus allowing more food for the young and reproductive offspring. On th
Re:The language of cells (Score:2)
Re:The language of cells (Score:3, Insightful)
Did anyone explicity or implicitly say it is?
Re:The language of cells (Score:4, Interesting)
What if you sell it by saying that research into this field will not only prove beneficial to killing cancer but will also prove beneficial to killing HIV, because HIV is a disease that kills the immune system (lol, wow, only a business person would believe in that connection). Use the words "killing" and use AIDS instead of HIV. Repeat these words with a loud megaphone directly into the ears of the business and marketting people. Killing Cancer and AIDS sells. Studying immunology in order to find out why cancerous cells that are communicating with the immune system are being ignored does not sell.
Anyway, best of luck to you, and I didn't meant to sound too trivial in the above, just trying to explain that marketing is not about what's right, it's about what's louder.
Dan
Re:The language of cells (Score:2)
Is it known if cancerous cells spread in this manner? I was under the impression that cancers spread from a single cell that divides into the growth, not that surrounding cells could become "infected."
very strange... (Score:2)
Re:very strange... (Score:2)
Intelligent cancer? (Score:2)
So, perhaps cancer IS caused by a virus (like the Human Papiloma virus)? Perhaps this unknown virus managed to implant its genetic code in humans and this was passed to future generations? You know, I'd really like to have someone sequence the genome of cancerous cells. Who knows what other surpri
The Reason ? (Score:2)
The clue is in the headline of the article :
"Scientists discover how cancer spreads"
not why
Old News! (Score:2)
This is old news... Nova ran a special on this back in 2001! But that's what you get for paying attention to mainstream media (msnbc, in this case), instead of PBS, NPR, and scientific journals.
No, it's new news (Score:3, Informative)
In Other News... (Score:2, Funny)
BFD... (Score:2)
Re:An even more interesting cancer finding. (Score:5, Insightful)
Cancer is a condition of abnormal cell division and growth, not some anaerobic chemical reaction. The cancerous cells have the same metabolic requirement for OXYGEN that normal cells do. OK, sure, they could rely on glycolysis and not use blood oxygen, but rapidly dividing cells use more energy than glycolysis can reasonably provide.
Take your "omg the evil drug companies invented disease so they could gouge us" conspiriacy theories and shove them where the sun don't shine.
Re:An even more interesting cancer finding. (Score:2, Interesting)
Er, yes. My mother-in-law was given a high dosage course of calcium to treat a small benign tumour. It was quite successful and she is now clear.
Re:An even more interesting cancer finding. (Score:2)
Which brings me to a question that someone else might be able to answer, is oxygen a poison to cancerous cells? If it is only a poison in high dosages like it is to normal cells then using oxygen is an extremely inefficient and dangerous method.
Re:An even more interesting cancer finding. (Score:3, Informative)
Cancerous cells are cells which are malfunctioning. The lack of plentiful oxygen contributes to their state of distress and causes them to malfunction further. A tumor puts out a cocktail of cell signaling molecules which translates, in English
Re:Stealing other nations' work? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Selection mechanism? (Score:3, Insightful)
Lots of things in biological systems are not built "logically". There are some fairly absurd mechanisms that exist merely because they have evolve
But cancer is not contagious (Score:2)
Re:But cancer is not contagious (Score:2)
In the vast majority of cancers there is a problem not directly related to the cancerous tissue itself. The cancerous tissue is a symptom. Usually the problem i
Re:Selection mechanism? (Score:2)
In embryology there is a process known as... "induction [accessexcellence.org] This has been widely studied in vertebrates, particularly amphibians. During induction, tissue becomes differentially determined in response to the concentration of a chemical signal from anot
Re:Selection mechanism? (Score:2)
Interesting choice of words in that it demonstrates a "blame the victim" mentality. Repeated physical aggravation and repeated chemical imbalance are major factors in determining the probability of cancerous formation. With that in hand it's much more appropriate to say,"Cells which have been routinely beat up are no longer content with their surroundings."
Re:Nitpick: Reason or mechanism? (Score:2)
That is a perfectly valid construct, and it is indeed a reason, without the need to get all phylosophical about the motivation or whatnot. "Reason" and "cause" can be synonyms.
Re:Nitpick: Reason or mechanism? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nitpick: Reason or mechanism? (Score:2)
Re:Nitpick: Reason or mechanism? (Score:2)
You seem to think things happen to make evolution happen. Evolution is a result, a phenomenon. Adaptations occur, and get preserved by selection, and that process we call evolution. It's not like cells are thinking "hey, if I mutate this way, I bet there is an evolutionary benefit, and I cause the evolution of a new, better species."
So no, there does NOT have to an evolutionary benefit for any biological process at the microscopic level.
Re:Nitpick: Reason or mechanism? (Score:2)
Ah, a reasoned answer (Score:2)
Think of cancer as a statistical event. Cellular mechanisms don't work 100% all the time. Most cancer cells are benign and never noticed. A few have very specific things go wrong with them that allow them to grow and spread and kill the host.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Nitpick: Reason or mechanism? (Score:2)
Re:Nitpick: Reason or mechanism? (Score:2)
It's possible that, evolutionarily speaking, cancer wasn't "naturally selected" out of human beings because 99.999% of them (for most of humanity's existence) died of something else before they could get cancer.
If cancer typically hit the majority of humans in their teens and twenties over the millenia, perhaps natural selection would hav
Re:Nitpick: Reason or mechanism? (Score:2)
Re:Great (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, yeah. Mainly because the relatively safe tetraethyl lead added to leaded petrol has been replaced with benzine, which is almost spectacularly carcinogenic. Even thinking about the stuff can give you a brain tumour.
Re:Great (Score:2, Funny)
Maybe I am dumb but... (Score:2, Interesting)
Could it be that a certain combination of chemicals sends the bone marrow cells into a specific location? The body must use the same technique to send them to places needed for new organs I guess. So the cancer cells just hijack that technique to use it themselves? If that is so, could they be man
Re:This is a big deal. (Score:2)
I beg to differ (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:slow news day... (Score:2)
and you're a jackass....For those who actually have cancer and understand what that is like (such as myself, Leukemia), you have rendered yourself a blubbering idiot.