Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science News

Tumor Suppression Gene Discovered 129

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the come-see-the-violence-inherent-in-the-system dept.
An anonymous reader writes ScieceDaily is reporting that researchers at Ohio State University may have identified a new and unusual tumor suppression gene that could effect cancers of the lung, head, and neck. From the article: "The gene, known as TCF21, is silenced in tumor cells through a chemical change known as DNA methylation, a process that is potentially reversible. The findings might therefore lead to new strategies for the treatment and early detection of lung cancer, a disease that killed an estimated 163,510 Americans in 2005. The study could also lead to a better understanding of the molecular changes that occur in tumor cells during lung-cancer progression."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tumor Suppression Gene Discovered More

Tumor Suppression Gene Discovered

Comments Filter:

  • Grammar Nazi Alert (Score:4, Funny)

    by Da Stylin' Rastan ( 771797 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:31AM (#14536622)
    that could effect cancers of the lung, head, and neck.

    it'd be even better if it could affect them too.

    • Re:Grammar Nazi Alert (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      > researchers at Ohio State University may have identified a new and unusual tumor suppression gene that could [b]effect[/b] cancers of the lung, head, and neck.

      A perfect example of a careless grammatical mistake that completely reverses the meaning of a sentence. To the original submitter, do we really want to call a gene that causes cancers a "tumor suppression gene"? Because that's the meaning of what was written, even if it wasn't the intended meaning.

      I wouldn't call Da Stylin' Rastan's comment a "gr
      • >i>A perfect example of a careless grammatical mistake that completely reverses the meaning of a sentence.

        A comment pointing out an error in the article summary which changes its meaning so drastically is NOT offtopic.
      • That's what they're called. "Tumor Suppression Genes" They're called "Tumor Suppression Genes" because that's their job - to suppress the development of tumors. The problem arises when they become mutated in some way and are no longer able to perform this function.

        All the "big" genes involved in cancer are either tumor suppressor genes or oncogenes, which have exactly the reverse effect. An oncogene, in it's normal state, is not very active. When they become mutated, they get VERY active, and actu
        • They're called "Tumor Suppression Genes" because that's their job - to suppress the development of tumors.

          That was GP's point. The genes mentioned in the article supress tumors, but the article summary said they effect tumors. "Effect" is rarely used as a verb (in American English anyway), but when it is, it means to cause or to bring into being. When used as a noun it normally means a result.

    • obligatory... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by iced_tea ( 588173 )
      arnold quote:
      "It's not a tumah!!!!"
      --Kindergarten Cop (1990) [imdb.com]
    • It's the first time I actually join the war between "affect" and "effect". It never stops amazing me on how people can mess this up. Is it because they sound the same or look the same or what? Anyone know why people mix these up please?
      • > Anyone know why people mix these up please?

        Me, I blame the phonics [google.com] fad (That's some kind of teaching fad where they teach little kids to read and spell based on _sound_ on the assumption that their delicate little brains can't grasp real spelling.)
      • I actually believe it's some weird subconscious thing that people don't want to overuse one of a pair of homonyms or similar sounding words. Think about it, most of the time one can write either affect/effect as a verb one means "affect", because one usually means the "to influence" sense. But it's like this little tiny voice in peoples' brains that tell them they used "affect" way too often this month and "effect" not nearly enough, and they're both (transitive) verbs, right? So they randomly use "effec
    • But spelling and grammar mistakes is what makes Slashdot look "Real" [slashdot.org]!

  • Effect (Score:4, Insightful)

    by HermanAB ( 661181 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:31AM (#14536624)
    Gee, why would anyone want to effect cancer? I would think there are enough carcinogens out there to effect cancer already.


    • Basically, the best way to create new jobs is to create problems that can be solved by new jobs. Bill Clinton proposed creating new jobs to fix the environment, someone else created the 'Lets Hate America' which is being solved by jobs at Halliburton and the U.S. Army, and paid for by the taxpayers. Similarly, you f**c up human genes through radioactive experiments, and then you create a new industry to solve that problem. I'm only half kidding ;)

  • Fix Lung Cancer? (Score:5, Funny)

    by killeena ( 794394 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:32AM (#14536626) Homepage
    No reason to stop smoking now. Everyone light up!

    • Re:Fix Lung Cancer? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Voltageaav ( 798022 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:44AM (#14536677) Homepage
      According to the article, the gene only slows things down. In tests, tumor cells with the gene preasant are smaller, but they're still there. While it's very exciting and will undoubtably lead to new treatments, it's not a cure yet.
      • I'll just smoke smaller cigarette, DUH!
      • According to the article, the gene only slows things down.

        Considering that the major problem with cancer is that it rapily multiplies and spreads, I dare say that slowing it down is virtually a cure by itself. To take a rapidly metatisizing tumor and cut it down from ITS GOING TO KILL YOU to, well, you have a nasty lump is big.

        Especially if it can be used in place, or to lessen the duration, of radiation or chemotherapy for follow up care. My brother had a tumor in his neck removed 6 months ago. He is

        • On top of that, if you have, say, an elderly patient whose life expectancy is limited anyway, simply slowing down the progress of cancer could easily allow him to live out the remainder of his natural life. And it would certainly give him a higher quality of life than radiation or chemo, either of which would be very harsh on an elderly person.

    • Re:Fix Lung Cancer? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by macklin01 ( 760841 )
      Actually, a good percentage of lung cancers aren't caused by smoking. I don't recall the percentage, but it's significant. It's unfortunate that those suffering through lung cancer have the stigma that "they deserve it," as that's not true in all the cases, and nobody deserves to suffer though cancer. -- Paul
      • I agree that almost nobody deserves cancer. I except the tobacco company executives, who deserve every kind of cancer smoking can produce.

        For public smokers, I hope only that they are forced to sit in small, poorly ventilated rooms filled with smoke of a type they find unbearable for hours on end, every single day of their lives, until they die or quit smoking in public.

        But that's just me.
      • Screw the lung cancer. COPD (aka emphysema) has got to suck. Not everyone with cirrhosis or HepC is an alchy or sex whore, either.
        • My great aunt died because of emphysema. It is really a horrible thing to suffer with. Unfortunately, seeing the effects of that didn't deter me from smoking. It was actually only until it was hitting my wallet a bit too much that I decided to quit.

          Ah well, whatever works I guess.
      • IANA biochemistrist, but this "methylation" process (I suppose it is replacing an H atom with CH3 group somewhere on an organic molecule, DNA in this case) sounds like something that may be caused by some reactive component of (perhaps especially tobacco) smoke.
        • Methylation is more than just the effect of pollutants and free radicals, its a natural part of a cells
          processes. When a cell wants to switch off a gene it attaches a methyl group onto that part of the DNA
          which prevents RNA from transcribing it. So DNA a program alters at runtime by commenting versus lines.
          This is how a cell in your body gets its identity, e.g. for a skin cell, all the genes not needed in a
          skin cell are methylated out. While we know the genetic code for humans and quite a few animals. We do

      • Re:Fix Lung Cancer? (Score:3, Informative)

        by ponos ( 122721 )

        Actually, a good percentage of lung cancers aren't caused by smoking. I don't recall the percentage, but it's significant.

        I have to disagree. Most studies estimate that ~90% of lung cancer patients are smokers. Furthermore, the incidence of cancer in smokers is also increased for other tumor types like oral cancer, laryngeal cancer (this one is practically an exclusive disease of smokers!) and bladder cancer. As a rough estimate, in our research database we have 71 lung cancer patients, 68 of which were

      • Actually, a good percentage of lung cancers aren't caused by smoking. I don't recall the percentage, but it's significant.

        Its about 10% from memory, but that would also depend on the population prevalance of smoking also - If you sampled from a community where nobody smoked, 100% of the cancers would be caused by something other than smoking.

        Its also a different kind of cancer typically (not a squamous cell one, more likely an adenocarcinoma IIRC) - in other words, it comes from a different cellular part of

      • Re:Fix Lung Cancer? (Score:3, Informative)

        by radtea ( 464814 )

        Several others have already pointed out that roughly 90% of lung cancers are known to be caused by smoking. It is true that 10% are not, just as 50% car accidents are not caused by drunk driving. But that doesn't make drunk driving ok, sensible or sane.

        Back in the day when I worked in radiotherapy physics I came to a simple conclusion: if you took all the money being spent on the kind of research I was doing and put it into an modestly effective anti-smoking campaign, you would extend more lives much lon
        • But they are addicted to a substance that is known to cause cancer, and which will almost certainly damage their health and shorten their lives.

          A minor nitpick--the substance to which they are addicted (nicotine) isn't what actually causes the cancer or damages their health.

          Although nicotine is toxic in fairly modest amounts (it's used as a pesticide in some commercial gardening products) most of the harm from tobacco use is actually caused by other inhaled and absorbed ingredients. Polycyclic aromati

      • The cancer rate doubled during the industrial revolution. This is probably mostly due specifically to burning coal. Burning coal just for electrical production (~50% of the U.S.'s use) releases over 1,250 metric tons of uranium and 5,000 metric tons of thorium each year in the US alone. (Those figures are somewhat loose ones which applied to the year 2000, and it's 2006 now, and the curve was trending gradually upward along with our power consumption...) Interestingly, or perhaps pathetically, we could get

    • No reason to stop smoking now. Everyone light up!

      It's a celebration, bitches!
    • We have a cure for anthrax. It generally works, caught early enough.

      No reason to stop inhaling those anthrax spores! Enjoy! Ha ha!

      So very funny. Or maybe not [sptimes.com].

  • I smoke quite a bit on a daily basis. Yes, I am well aware of my vice. This comes as pretty stellar news for me. Should, at some point in the future, this develop into a worthwhile treatment for cancers, I welcome it.

    Here's to our new gene discovering overlords; may you use your powers for good and not to create a new race of super intelligent and immortal beings.
    • To be honest, I have to disagree that this is stellar news for smokers. Even if you do have an easy cure for lung cancer available, this doesn't mean go ahead and smoke to your heart's content.

      Lung cancer isn't the only reason to stop smoking. It discolors your teeth, makes you stink and disturbs people around you.

      • Re:good news for me (and you) (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Voltageaav ( 798022 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:58AM (#14536734) Homepage
        Don't forget emphysema. I think that's a tad worse than discolored teeth, or the stench that surrounds you.
        • Don't forget health insurance.

          Smoking is a quick way to pay more for your insurance and some companies are now dropping smokers from health plans.

          Smoking also lengthens recovery times after surgery. Any surgeon you'd let slice you up would insist that you stop smoking for a certain period before and after the surgery.

          The only reason smoking isn't going to go away is that States desperately need the tax revenues that cigarette sales bring in. Pretty much the only people who don't get rich off cigarette sales
          • They may not get rich, but tobacco is about the only crop worth anything at all, most of the time. My grandfather used to raise 3 or 4 acres back in the early 80s, and I remember him saying it was worth 20 or 30 times as much as corn or soy. Even with all the extra work (tobacco gets stripped by hand).
            • No, Toebacky farmers are getting rich in the US because the US Govment is buying out their farms, or at least their production of tobacco.
              It's still voluntary at this point, and it's a pretty big carrot that they're dangling out in front of the farmers, even given the return tobacco farmers get normally.

              Unfortunately, the thing that will get livestock farmers in the US out of business will be SLAPP suits by PETA et al. (but we'll still keep importing meat and byproducts from Canada, Mexico, China, India, Au
              • >Unfortunately, the thing that will get livestock farmers in the US out of business will be SLAPP suits by PETA et al. >(but we'll still keep importing meat

                Is exactly why PETA and company are a bunch of traitors. They aren't solving any problems that they claim to be solving, just wrecking the American economy. Hopefully Bush the GREAT will dispense with them in his third term (after we adjust the constitution).

        • Re:good news for me (and you) (Score:5, Insightful)

          by ross.w ( 87751 ) <rwonderley&gmail,com> on Monday January 23, 2006 @03:49AM (#14537265) Journal
          A quick survey of my four grandparents, while a small sample, is enlightening.

          Maternal Grandmother
          Sendentary job, never smoked. developed diabetes at age 70, constant blood pressure problems - died age 84 after years of suffering strokes

          Maternal Grandfather
          Athlete and Gallipoli Veteran - Not a smoker to my knowledge. Suffered with high blood pressure and died age 84 due to complications from Parkinson's disease.

          Paternal Grandmother
          Overweight to the point of obesity. Gave up smoking when in her 40s
          Died age 71 from complications resulting from Type 2 diabetes.

          Paternal Grandfather
          Stevedore and tennis coach. Smoked all his adult life until age 78. Always has two schooners (large glass) of beer every evening. Recently celebrated his 90th birthday. Suffers from Emphysema (not yet on oxygen) which will probably eventually kill him.

          From this small sample, it appears that lack of fitness will kill you just as quick if not quicker than smoking.

          So Slashdotters, instead of poking fingers at the smokers, get up, turn off your computer, get out from your Mother's basement and go for a walk. It might save your life.

          (I don't smoke btw)
          • The CDC numbers [usatoday.com] say that obesity kills 25,000 Americans a year; tobacco kills 430,000.

            BTW I second that call to break away from that computer and take a walk.

            But there's no reason to pretend obesity is a killer just like tobacco. It's not even in the same league.

          • misses the point (Score:1, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward
            You're missing the point. Obesity can be fairly easily dealt with, as far as such things go. Cancer, heart disease, emphysema are very difficult and expensive to deal with and generally not very reversable.

            Smoking has a profound imapact on the economy, our taxes, and our health insurance rates. My uncle was a jungle fighter, a marine in the pacific in WW-2. He was given cigarettes in his rations and became profoundly addicted. By the time he died, it was hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills--al
      • Pipes smell good, and don't disturb sane people. Also, since pipes are not smoked as often as cigarettes, they discolour the teeth far less.

    • Re:good news for me (and you) (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Yeah, it'll be pretty awesome. The lung cancer won't kill you, so you'll be free to fully enjoy the emphysema and heart disease.
    • 1/3 of tobacco deaths are beacuse of cancer, 1/3 because of COLD (chronic obstructive lung dissease, aka emphysema in this thread) and 1/3 from cardiovascular events.

  • DNA methylation reversible? (Score:5, Informative)

    by aschoff_nodule ( 890870 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:36AM (#14536643)
    To my knowledge DNA methylation cannot be reversed and DNA methylase has not been found to exist yet. The only way DNA de-methylation at a particular CpG site in DNA can occur is by DNA replication(cell division), where replication of DNA gives an unmethylated CpG site.

  • One more breakthrough reported on /.? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by geneing ( 756949 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:41AM (#14536665)
    Well, as a regular /. reader I'm confused. In the past couple of year I've read dozens of reports here about breakthrough discoveries in cancer treatment and fusion research. However, neither cancer has been cured nor fusion reactors have been built.

    What am I missing? :)

    • A sense of unfaltering optimism, of course!

      -Ethan
    • In general, any breakthrough discovery requires years of follow-up testing to make sure it's actually valid, and even then whatever comes as a result of it will be of limited use and prohibitively expensive - even assuming that the follow-up testing didn't reveal any new hurdles, which it usually does.
    • That's not exactly fair ... there are many types of cancer that are routinely cured (cancer is not, after, a single disease) and there have been plenty of fusion reactors built ... they just don't actually generate usable power yet.
    • Missing a cure for all cancer, and a fusion generator that supplies the world's energy needs.
    • You're missing the point of science. The scientific method is applied to problems again and again to try and solve them. If something works one time, other people try and get the same result. The even greater problem with things like cancer and fusion is that they're very difficult probles to try and "solve". Some study may show that method X solves the problem, but there may have been problems with the methods used, or it could have just been a fluke.
    • The thing I find most intriguing about this reply is the inability of moderators to figure out if the reply's author is trying to be funny or serious.

      I can imagine their mouse pointers shifting uneasily between Funny and Insightful. They don't want to appear out-of-touch with the extreme dry humor that it could represent, nor have they fully digested the reaction they have when considering the realities of the author's comments. Which to pick... which... to... pick?!?!

      Oh the humanity!

      PS: Just rate it Fun
    • "What am I missing?", he asked.

      Nights, once we light up Jupiter!

      Or everything else, if we light up terra instead....
  • Have it been patented [georgetown.edu] yet [slashdot.org]?

  • might as well get it out of the way.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:47AM (#14536687)
    I for one welcome our new 6-packs-a-day cancerless overlords!

  • Oncology epidemiology and methylation... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CupBeEmpty ( 720791 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:56AM (#14536729)
    ..are areas that I have worked in, at the Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in NYC. I am not really that enthusiastic about this find. There are an enourmous amount of "cancer supressing genes" but very few yield useful clinical results. This seems to be a case of over-hyping (which occurs all the time) of a scientific find.
    • Yeah - add this to the jillion other tumor supressors. These give insights into the pathways that control cancerous cells, but have not been the great targets for therapy one might have thought when the first ones where found. There is nothing obviously special about this particular gene compared to the others. But my read would not be hyping - just someone who doesn't know where the base line is to begin with.
  • These people are looking for the wrong solution. I'm not looking to get a cure for cancer; my desire is revenge. Invent something that will give cancer to a cancer. Sweet poetic justice.
    • while not quite cancer-to-a-cancer, a friend of mine at UChicago does research similar to what these guys did [landesbioscience.com]. genetically engineer herpes to go after cancer and only cancer, leaving everything else be.

      whether or not it burns when the cancer pees has yet to be discovered, though.
  • Has the gene been patented yet? or is that part of the genome still pending?
  • Any student who has taken an undergraduate course about cancer and/or signal transduction will tell you how large these networks are (which means a LOT of intricate pathways to remember for the exams... but I am digressing..). Which means that any genes whose function is as a tumor suppressor is discovered is only one out of many such genes known. Moreover, its not as if a mutation in one gene is ever a chief cause of a given type of cancer. Every mutated gene tends to increase the chances of cancer. I susp

  • Nothing new to see, move along... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by InternationalCow ( 681980 ) <mauricevansteensel.mac@com> on Monday January 23, 2006 @04:03AM (#14537295) Journal
    Another example of researchers drumming up their findings. Altered methylation patterns of tumor suppressor gene promotor sequences is nothing new. Neither is the finding of a gene whose product can act to suppress tumor growth. There are many of those.Posting this on slashdot is somewhat overdone. DNA methylation is an exciting target for chemotherapy, that will doutblessly benefit cancer patients in the near future. But it is too early to cry victory.
  • "a process that is potentially reversible."

    Yes, the natural way.
    With folate (folic acid) and selenium and other proper nutrion. (very important to women proir to and during pregnancy for proper cell division and development). Also important for adults. Studies are ongoing of course.
    Selenium levels are low in the US so it would be smart to supplement the diet.

    It seems science has been on the verge of a cancer cure for more then 30 years.
    • Folate acts as a methyl group donor. The article describes a gene that is inactivated by hypermethylation (over methylation). More folate, and therefore more available methylgroups, is not likely to solve problems caused by methylation of a tumor suppressor gene.

      On the other hand, folate may be beneficial in preventing tumors that would arise from double stranded breaks in DNA caused by insufficient methyl group availability interfering with the creation of thymidine or through hypomethylation of oncogene
      • "is not likely to solve problems caused by methylation of a tumor suppressor gene."

        in the formation of cancer, abnormal methylation, resulting in both hypomethylation and hypermethylation, has been observed.
        Folate deficiency is a major cause of impaired methylation, because it leads to a decrease in the levels of SAMe and hence to impaired methylation.
        http://www.ffnmag.com/NH/ASP/strArticleID/357/strS ite/FFNSite/articleDisplay.asp [ffnmag.com]

        Of all epigenetic modifications, hypermethylation, which represse
        • Folate and folate-related polymorphisms certainly play a role in the pathogensis and etiology of cancer through abnormal methylation and thymidine synthesis. That is not in dispute. However, your proposal that folic acid supplementation (adding more methyl groups) is somehow going to fix a problem related to having too much methylation just doesn't make any sense.
          • What i have read claims so.
            But it has to go hand in hand with all necessary supplmentation, including trace minerals.

            So my overall point is proper supplementation in a synergistic manor with all the vit's, min's and trace min's gives the body what it needs to repair itself.

            It will repair slower then science likes to see it repair, but the body can repair itself naturally and completly with proper/balanced supplementation.

  • Hey... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by mikepaktinat ( 609872 )
    I do IT support for that guy.

    He's a good guy.
    I think its crazy how you can work every day with a person and not really know the depth of what they do for a living.
  • As much as you all laugh that emphysema will still kill smokers, you have to remember that not all smokers inhale the smoke into their lungs, therefore decreasing the possibility of getting emphysema. This treatment will also work for mouth cancer, which is the biggest threat to those who only smoke cigars. As one of them, I'm glad to see it.
  • sigh

    When will anyone listen to what *it* has to say?

    -Eric

  • Bad news, but its not very likely that drugs/bioid agents etc will be developed to reverse DNA methylation. That's a covalent bond to "sp3" carbon that's being formed and though the drug-induced de-methylation is concievable its not very likely.
  • After 50 years of "promising" new drugs, the 5 year survival rate for lung cancer is almost the same today as it was 50 years ago: about 15%. Even the treatments that work at all, usually measure success as adding a few months to the end of life. And they are not fun months.

    The good news: about 90% of lung cancer is completely preventable. We have a vaccine for lung cancer. We know how to drastically reduce lung cancer. We have a proven method: fighting the tobacco industry. And we can win.

    This in

  • This is great! Now if we can only get the Big Tobacco Companies to support this type of research with some of their settlement money...
  • What they didn't mention was that this gene was found in Cylon-human hybrid fetus blood. While the short term results are promising, long term implications are not yet fully understood. Use at your own risk!

Slashdot Top Deals

God made the integers; all else is the work of Man. -- Kronecker

Close