Drugs to Prevent Cell Suicide 110
MrErlenmeyer writes "Many injuries and diseases including heart attacks, stroke, and Parkinson's cause healthy cells to kill themselves. A group of scientists at Washington University in Saint Louis believe they have a lead on how to stop apoptosis (unwanted cell suicide) and thus minimize the tissue damage that occurs as a result of these injuries. They designed drugs that halt the actions of executioner caspases, proteins that act as a molecular wrecking crew. Other scientists had found that a chemical called isatin could prevent tissue damage in rabbit hearts that were deprived of oxygen. This was the starting point for the team of researchers in Missouri. By making some changes to the molecule, they were able to develop an even more effective molecule. With some further refinement, this may lead to a new class of emergency medications."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you care about other people's daughters, get your son vaccinated for HPV too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you care about other people's daughters, get your son vaccinated for HPV too.
excuse me (Score:2)
We just don't want the government demanding that weird concoctions be injected into our bodies.
Is that so bad?
Re: (Score:2)
needed? (Score:2)
I can also choose to go hang-gliding, or would you ban that too? My life, my choice. Butt out.
Shall I run your life? I'd love to: No smoking anywhere, no alcohol ever, no usage of vehicles or sharp knives, floss your teeth after every meal, wear a helmet at all times, take your vitamins, no Sun exposure ever (even via windows), eat your broccoli and Brussels sprouts, no soda or coffee, drink 12 glasse
Re: (Score:1)
The key difference you have failed to notice between a vaccine and the safety-related examples you have listed, is that by being vaccinated you are helping to stop the spread of a disease and so actually avoiding harm to people other than yourself.
not even close and you know it (Score:2)
No vaccine: passive, death unlikely, no harm at all if I'm uninfected, no harm at all if I don't have sex WITH UNVACCINATED PEOPLE, any potential sex partner can choose the vaccine for themselves...
I mean gee, if it is so great, why don't my sex partners just get the vaccine? That'd work way better than me getting the vaccine, because they might have sex with other people too!
Re: (Score:2)
Shooting: active, death can be made certain
No vaccine: passive, death unlikely, no harm at all if I'm uninfected, no harm at all if I don't have sex WITH UNVACCINATED PEOPLE, any potential sex partner can choose the vaccine for themselves...
I mean gee, if it is so great, why don't my sex partners just get the vaccine? That'd work way better than me getting the vaccine, because they might have sex with other people too!
You're missing the point. Diseases aren't independently chosen risks, they have to be transmitted. Vaccinations don't just keep one person safe, they stop the propagation of the disease, and it is beneficial to society as a whole to enforce broad vaccination. With enough people immune, the disease becomes less common or can even be wiped out.
Your argument is about like saying "I should be able to drive drunk if I want, if I get injured it's my fault and if other people don't like it they should stay off
correction (Score:2)
There, I fixed that for you. Your analogies are terrible. I'm not endangering anybody against their will. Actually, you want to endanger me against my will. People do get severely injured and even killed by vaccine reactions.
It really doesn't hurt you if I get the disease, as long as you are protected by your vaccine. Maybe I just want
Re: (Score:2)
"I should be able to drive drunk on my private property if I want, if I get injured it's my fault and if other people don't like it they should stay off my private road."
There, I fixed that for you. Your analogies are terrible. I'm not endangering anybody against their will. Actually, you want to endanger me against my will. People do get severely injured and even killed by vaccine reactions.
It really doesn't hurt you if I get the disease, as long as you are protected by your vaccine. Maybe I just want to prevent the extinction of yet another species, offering myself to protect it. :-) Whatever, it's none of your business.
That logic only works if I trust you to stay on your own property. Now, I don't specifically distrust you (in fact chances are that you are trustworthy) but experience shows that if given the freedom to endanger others, a small but substantial portion of people will abuse that freedom. Since there's no good way to tell ahead of time who will be responsible and who won't, and because vaccines are reasonably cheap and safe, from the view point of society as a whole it makes the most sense to make sure every
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
If you care about other people's daughters, get your son vaccinated for HPV too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:better way (Score:4, Insightful)
BTW: The seemingly ultra-religious, daddy's-little-angel types have sex in high school, too. They are just better at lying about it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
When your quaint little untested drug can prevent HIV and herpes, along with the risk of permanent infertility from chlamydia, you go ahead and give me a ring. Until then, I and many others like me will rely on the ONLY way to prevent all of the above + HPV.
Which is... what? A chastity belt? I mean, you can't seriously believe that telling kids not to have sex will actually keep them from doing it. Statistics have shown that it doesn't work.
In any case, railing against the HPV vaccine is ridiculous. It's like urging people not to wear seat belts, because the only way to prevent all injuries from car accidents is to avoid cars entirely. The fact is, most of us will ride in a car at some point in our lives, and we'd better know how to keep ourselves as safe as
Let evolution will take its course (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your suggestion to evolutionarily select against risk-tolerance and sex drive would lead to a lifeless, dull, and directionless race. I suggest you wrap yourself in bubble wrap and don't ever ride in a car again. Stay home posting to slashdot--that's safest.
Re: (Score:2)
Cancer (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Cancer (Score:4, Interesting)
This could also be a clue in how to treat and kill off cancer cells.
Interesting stuff.
cancerlicious (Score:2)
A three month suppression of apoptosis and then a return to homeostasis is probably safer than a three month vacation to Haw
Re: (Score:1)
If it comes to it, I'd rather die from cancer 5 years after a heart attack rather than die from the same heart attack.
no worries (Score:2)
You're not going to keep taking this drug, are you? Take it once, it wears off... that's not a lot of time for nasty things to grow.
Cancer Man would be proud! (Score:3, Informative)
I'm sure they have all sorts of good research and know lots about this, and I freely grant that a 10x increase in your chances of getting cancer somewhere down the line beats Parkinson's, but this still sounds really scary.
Re:Cancer Man would be proud! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Cancer Man would be proud! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, when a cell is deprived of oxygen, it gets marked for death as soon as it's reactivated. Hence, perfectly salvageable tissue, some that can't be replaced easily like heart muscle, dies merely as an inherent precaution.
Now, I don't know about you... but I'd rather have a slight increased risk of cancer somewhere down the line, than be dead now thanks to my body's overzealous attempt to keep me healthy.
This is a Good Thing (tm).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apoptosis not "unwanted" (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When I've just had a heart attack, and apoptosis would rather kill 40% of my heart tissue, thereby killing me outright, than possibly increase my cancer risk, it's most certainly unwanted.
For emergency purposes, stopping apoptosis is perfectly valid, and in fact desired to the grim alternative. I'd assume that once the treatment is out of your system, apoptosis is no longer suppressed, and everything goes back to normal... well, after a triple bypass to avoid future heart-attacks due to clogged
Re: (Score:1)
Apoptosis (Score:5, Informative)
Especially with respect to cancer research apoptosis is a pathway which we seek to activate. Cells which become cancerous are supposed to enter apoptotic cycles and prevent themselves from creating tumors within the tissue. Cancerous cells manage to win the race condition between apoptotic and survival pathways but, in terms of the mechanisms at work within the cell, are tottering on the edge. Many new cancer treatments rely on this on the edge circumstance in the interest of introducing a pharmacologically active substance into the body which will cause cancerous cells, on the edge of apoptosis, to move fully into apoptotic function.
Since the cells in the body are constantly in a state of self-regulation and interregulation it is possible that cells which enter apoptosis too easily are similarly causes of diseases. It is this set of conditions that the researchers in the article wish to treat.
Don't be misled about what apoptosis actually is, though, or be swayed to view it as good or bad. Different conditions within the tissue call for different actions within the cells which make up that tissue.
Has anyone tried actually LISTENING to the cells?? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Has anyone tried actually LISTENING to the cell (Score:1)
Won't do any good. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Has anyone tried actually LISTENING to the cell (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a joke, actually isn't. Cancer, which I think can very accurately be described as a collection of zombie cells, often deactivates the agents of apoptosis in order to function.
I don't get it. (Score:3, Funny)
Mod Parent Up (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
From the Dept. of Inadvisably Applied Science (Score:2, Interesting)
Here's to hoping... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
apoptosis unwanted? (Score:1, Insightful)
I suppose apoptosis-preventing drugs might have their place, but don't smoke or try to get a tan while you're taking them.
Re: (Score:1)
Watch the cancer cells... (Score:1)
This technique better be applied very specifically to cells and not "generally" to a mass of tissue, otherwise you'll be making the equivalent of a petri dish (read: idealized growing environment) for cancer.
Re: (Score:1)
Side Effects (Score:2)
Cell Suicide Drugs? (Score:1)
The cop took me to the jail, he says, "Kid, I'm gonna put you in the cell, I need your wallet and your belt."
I says, "I understand you want my wallet so I don't have any money to spend in the cell, but why do you need my belt?"
He says, "kid, we don't want any hangings." Of course, he was just making sure, because he also took out
Re: (Score:2)
Jail? for littering?
Excuse the off topic-comment, but what did you toss casually out the car window, a metric ton of toxic waste?
Re: (Score:2)
i was way off the mark (Score:2)
So... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
A few clarifications... (Score:3, Informative)
The major issue, however, is simply that most of the cells that are going to die are irreparably damaged byt he time you get to the hospital. They ER will likely give you drug thinners and do whatever else is needed to get oxygen supply back. Not that this drug wouldn't be somewhat helpful, but I'd be really surprised if there's any great improvement in the % of lives saved. And any life saved is certainly worth the effort, but I just don't see this as a major breakthrough.
Now, show me a drug that can selectively induce apoptosis in certain cells, and then we'd have a cure for most forms of cancer (most forms of cancer are the result of cells whose apoptosis pathway is failing for some reason), and that would be a big deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
this would prevent that. the cells might not work for long, but hopefully long enough for replacements to come in, as a sizable number of cells spontaneously dying in the heart or brain tends to lead to death for everything else, but a few cells dying at a time and being replaced wouldn't, which i presume is the intent.
though i can't RTFA (the server is probab
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the current hypothesis is that the apoptosis in hypoxia (drowning, heart attack, stroke) is triggered because the rush of fresh oxygen overwhelms what the cell is capable of dealing with, poisoning the cell and irreparably damaging the DNA.
Oxygen is a poison, as you may or may not know. Our cells can only use it because they create various enzymes, such as superoxide dismutase [wikipedia.org], that clean up the mess made by stray oxygen before it can do too much damage. Take away those enzymes, and oxygen rad
Reperfusion (Score:4, Insightful)
Quick summary: Doctors and scientists are finding that the cells of the heart and brain are still alive after clinical death, but they go into a dormant state. Jolting them back with oxygen and adrenaline after 4-5 minutes seems to kill the otherwise still living cells. A trial run on 34 cardiac patients indicates a significant increase in CPR success when done in a very gradual and controlled manner after that 4-5 minute mark (about 80% success opposed to around 15% for traditional CPR techniques)
Drugs? (Score:1)
I'll say this will be handy (Score:1)
apoptosis is quite wanted (Score:2)
Some specific forms of apopotosis may be harmful in some cases, but that's rare.
Please, people ... (Score:1)
Incredible ramifications for premature death (Score:2)
In short, just because your heart stops beating doesn't mean your cells are going to die anytime soon. Cells are undergoing (committing?) apoptosis when oxygen is reintroduced, after they have been deprived for 5 minutes or so.
If we could prevent apoptosis, we could conceivably restore life to a person who has been dead for hours. I wonder if that could time could be stretched even further under cold temperatures.
A cure for death (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it is a cure for death. Of course, all your cells will turn cancerous and you'll need to live in a vat full of nutrients. You'll potentially live forever, though I'm not sure I'd wish that sort of immortality on my worst enemy.
Re:A cure for death (Score:5, Informative)
This is a cure for death, unless I'm badly mistaken.
That'sa bit of an overstatement. It may be the beginnings of a treatment that will greatly improve survival after heart attacks, strokes, and a number of other conditions.
It could do that by limiting or preventing the damage from reperfusion. As reported in an article a couple months ago, lack of circulation/oygen doesn't ITSELF cause dath, but it does set up a condition where as soon as circulation and oxygenation resume, the person will die of massive cell death.
In theory it means that a person who collapses and has no heartbeat for some time (say, 2 hours) could be brought in to a hospital and resuscitated successfully if apoptosis from reperfusion can be prevented.
On a smaller scale, this could be very helpful in treating crush injuries and limb reattachment. It might also permit complex surgeries that are currently out of the question.
It may prolong life in the sense that it makes various medical crises in old age survivable, but it won't eliminate death. The problem there is cell senescence, that is they stop dividing.
Re: (Score:2)
You are badly mistaken.
Re: (Score:2)
This is an attempted cure for death, of course death will stil find a way it will just be more violent or virulent. I understand why the ageing boomers would want this, but I think it is a worse idea than just about anything else they have managed yet, and that's saying alot. Let's look at the state of the world and figure out what will happen if the wealthiest 10% stop dieing: Great acceleration of an already expanding wealth gap. Younger generations l
Re: (Score:1)
It inhibits the procaspases from being activated into caspases. These also are activated by faulty DNA during DNA duplication. So if you were to take these constantly to not die, you would have a lot of problems as many of the environmental cancers are caused by over exposure your body can handle limited amounts of most things like UV light, smoke etc. By inhibiting the caspases you would be inhibiting apoptosis of cells with small DNA mutations which othe
iSatin ??? (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)