Cancer Drug Found; Scientist Annoyed 349
sporkme writes "A scientist was frustrated when the compound she was working with (called PPAR-gamma) destroyed her sample of cancer cells. Further research revealed that the substance was surprisingly well suited as a cancer treatment. Lab test results on mice resulted in the destruction of colon tumors without making the mice sick." Quoting: "'I made a calculation error and used a lot more than I should have. And my cells died,' Schaefer said. A colleague overheard her complaining. 'The co-author on my paper said, "Did I hear you say you killed some cancer?" I said "Oh," and took a closer look.' ... [They found that the compound killed] 'pretty much every epithelial tumor cell lines we have seen.'" Update: 02/15 17:27 GMT by KD : As reader CorporalKlinger pointed out, PPAR-gamma is a cellular receptor, not a compound; and this news is not particularly new.
Moo (Score:3, Informative)
Um, no. The "Scientist Annoyed" came first. Indeed, had she not been annoyed she it may not have been brought to her attention that she suceeded.
A scientist was frustrated
And stop saying scientist. She is a researcher. The articles calls her a researcher. I'll bet she will even call herself a researcher. And, she is relevant because she was researching.
Re:Moo (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I found a cancer drug, darn it (Score:5, Informative)
PPAR-Gamma is a cellular receptor, not a compound (Score:5, Informative)
Source:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=
Notice how it says "implicated in cancer"? That information has been there for quite some time. Time for people to stop posting this antiquated junk as "new news."
It's from Asimov, I believe. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Like other famous finds in history (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Terrible article, facts wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Moo (Score:5, Informative)
I am not, however, a researcher specializing in one aspect of scientific inquiry.
It's becoming an important distinction these days because so many "scientists" who are no better qualified than I am, are none-the-less using their status as "scientist" to question the results put out by scientists with in-depth knowledge backed by significant practical experience in the study of their specialty (e.g. a researcher).
Don't Be Daft (Score:5, Informative)
Oh please. You make it sound like the researcher was walking down the street one day with a dish of cancer and somebody bumped into her with the right chemicals. Like it was the scientific equivalent of "You got chocolate in my peanut butter!"
The decades of previous work, including her education and work experience, worked steadily towards her being a cancer researcher who was following a logical chain that brought cancer cells and compound together for the discovery. If any of it was blind luck it was perhaps a tiny little sliver at the end. Really not even that was luck. After all, even though the results were unexpected, clearly she was on the track to something. No luck required.
I think it's insulting to her dismiss the roles that logic and deductive reasoning played in arranging these circumstances.
Re:You have to wonder (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Moo (Score:5, Informative)
research director
scientist
research assistant/researcher
The research director can approve projects for research.
The scientist can propose projects for research - also supervise the project
The research assistant/research carries out the work required to complete the project
Just Like Penicillin (Score:4, Informative)
It seems that the "error" part of the scientific method's "trial and error" process is even more important than the planned "trial" part.
Maybe we should have more scientific research conducted like jazz, which is sometimes described as "gracefully exploiting errors".
Re:Terrible article, facts wrong (Score:5, Informative)
"PPAR Y inhibitors reduce tubulin protein levels by a PPAR, PPAR and proteasome-independent mechanism, resulting in cell cycle arrest, apoptosis and reduced metastasis of colorectal carcinoma cells"
Male severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) mice, 6 weeks of age, were maintained in a specific pathogen-free environment. Experiments were performed according to the guidelines of Yokohama City University. At day 0, 2 106 HT-29 cells were injected into the spleen. After inoculation, the mice were randomized into 2 treatment groups (each with n = 6) and 1 control group (n = 6). Starting at day 1 and daily thereafter, T0070907 (1 or 5 mg/kg/day) or control (1% DMSO vehicle) was administered orally. These concentrations were chosen based on initial pilot experiments to detect morbidity based on T0070907 alone. At 1 or 5 mg/kg/day, no increased morbidity (based on grooming, activity and food intake) was noted in mice with or without injected tumor cells. Four weeks later, the number and size of metastatic lesions in the liver were determined. Tumor volume was calculated as previously described.
Re:As good as it sounds... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:As good as it sounds... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Moo (Score:2, Informative)
How would she be considered irrelevant? She's the one who stumbled on this after all.
Re:Now that is a true nerd (Score:5, Informative)
Alright - I Concede I Didn't RTFA Well Enough (Score:3, Informative)
Regardless, I maintain it was much less luck than determined methodology that brought this forward. A fortunate event happened at the tip of decades of buildup.
Re:Tag Article Thusly: (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Mouse Cancer (Score:5, Informative)
For example, many animal trials (mice in particular) didn't show cigarette smoke to be nearly as much of a cancer risk as it is for humans. This research data was in turn used by Big Tobacco in their defense back when they were still trying to pretend that smoking isn't so bad.
Similarly, penicillin's release to the market was delayed because it had a tendency to kill lab animals.
Re:Patents (Score:1, Informative)
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=
From the app, it looks like this stuff can cure just abaout anything:
"diseases such as senile osteoporosis, postmenopausal osteoporosis, disuse osteoporosis, steroid-induced osteoporosis, fracture, osteogenesis imperfecta, rachitis, senile arthrosis, obesity, emaciation, type I and type II diabetes mellitus, arteriosclerosis, lipid metabolism disorder, pancreatitis, autoimmune diseases, glucose metabolism disorder, diabetic neuropathy, diabetic complications, hyperuricemia, leukemia, functional disorders in retinoid related receptors, liver dysfunction, anemia, cancers, inflammation, Basedow's disease, heart disease, Alzheimer's disease, eating disorders, hypertension and renal diseases."
Re:Very True. Discovery of Teflon is another examp (Score:3, Informative)
F4C2 is horribly toxic. They had a big tank of this compressed gas and had set up the wall of glassware (with great care) for some experiment. They hooked it up, opened the valve, and nothing came out. (Yet the weight, as above, indicated that the tank WAS still full.)
The concern was that the valve was clogged, and that the tank still contained the poisonous gas under high pressure. So any attempt to open it - or even closely examine the valve - could lead to the sudden release of the gas and the death of all in the room and many in the building. Yet how could they dispose of it? And what HAD happened, anyhow?
(This was like a blown fuse in an electrical lab: The initial trouble is just a symptom of something underlying, which needs to be investigated, if only to prevent a recurrence.)
Eventually, after much deliberation, one of the experimenters took his life in his hands and cut open the tank, discovering the white powder.
They immediately realized it had polymerized (probably due to a contaminant) and were hot on the trail of a new and very interestin/useful plastic - starting with a large sample which told them what useful properties it would have and knowing exactly what the monomer in question was.
= = = =
Discovery of nylon was a similar accident: A solution was left on a window sill and turned cloudy when exposed to light. Fortunately the chemist decided to examine it to figure out what had happened rather than just dumping it - and thus were born synthetic fabrics.
Re:You have to wonder (Score:3, Informative)