Key Step In Programmed Cell Death Discovered 80
Investigators at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital have discovered a dance of proteins that protects certain cells from undergoing apoptosis, also known as programmed cell death. Understanding the fine points of apoptosis is important to researchers seeking ways to control this process. In a series of experiments, St. Jude researchers found that if any one of three molecules is missing, certain cells lose the ability to protect themselves from apoptosis. A report on this work appears in the advance online publication of Nature.
I for one.... (Score:5, Funny)
dancing proteins (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Approaching Immortality and the end of disease (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. (Score:2)
On a slightly related note, does it drive anyone else crazy when someone says "theory" when they mean (at best) hypothesis (a falsifiable idea based on the data) or (at worst) conjecture (when they mean "some hair-brained idea without significant support but *maybe* fits my notion of life, the universe, and everything)?
What GPP was saying is NOT a theory. Relativity is a theory. Evolution (well, through mutation and natural select
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong, it's absolutely a theory. ANY idea about how things work is a theory, whether well supported or not.
There is a common belief (I think because it's often taught in grade school) that there is a process by which hypotheses graduate into theoryhood, but it's simply not true. Any theory, from the Time Cube to the notion of gravity, is perched on the same knife edge of being falsifiable by the right piece of crucial evidence. That's the true glory of the scientific
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You expect people who can't reliably distinguish between "there", "their", and "they're" (or "rain", "rein", and "reign") to make precise distinctions in the use of the word "theory"?
You're new here, right?
Fool! (Score:4, Funny)
Perhaps, once you've become immortal, you'll live long enough to understand the time cube. Foolish mortals!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"My Proof for Immortality."
If you call that opinion piece a "proof", it's already evident you're not talking the same language as everyone else. I don't know what a "conceptual proof" is. If you mean "proof of concept", that implies you have evidence that the concept holds water.
You compare biology with "data":
"The human body is a data set. This data set is transferred repeatedly throughout life and it is t
Re: (Score:1)
"This is exactly why we dismiss such prattle."
" Exactly who is "WE" ? What are there names? Do you think and speak on behalf of a lot of people, must be that group mind thing.
In about 6 months all soft tissue in the body is replaced by new molecules after 3 years all bone matter has been replaced by new molecules. So there will be no physical material currently present in your body that will remain in it three years from now, are no physical remnants that persist, the only thing that persisted was the information representing your body. It is a bit
Re: (Score:1)
What you've said is fine, though I'm not sure who it's directed at. I'd (hesitantly) add that we don't directly perceive the world in any way at all. Things we "see" are just our brains' reactions t
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Pass the bong (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"The physical material of the body is not persistent; the data is persistent. A life term is only limited by the ability to replicate the data provided the life force or animation principal persists."
Ok, where does the "data" reside, if not in the physical material of the body? Is it not DNA which codes for the entire material body, aka its "data set"? But wait, DNA is material! So explain then, what you mean by "the data is persistent".
*What is the point* of throwing around a "theory"
Re: (Score:1)
Cancer applications? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Everybody can kill cancer cells.
The art is do do it selectively (to not kill everything else). No breakthrough here.
Re: (Score:1)
Throwing some ideas out there (Score:3, Interesting)
That's why I always thought the most successful treatments would be the ones that somehow exerted selective pressure to favor the weaker cells - those most vulnerable to a particular treatment, for example.
Failing that, an "ensemble method" is probably the way to go, since cells that survive that would have to be immune to the intersection of every treatment you're throwing at them.
Another idea that avoids the selectivity problem is to use things that cause cancerous cells to differentiate, rather than
Re: (Score:1)
Shit! I need to revise my medical contract before Dr. Brutus arrives for my treatment. I knew I left somethin' out. The contract looked too simple.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Understanding the mechanisms of apoptosis is fundamental to understanding cancer. Cancer cells are typically "immortal". They do not undergo programmed cell death. This research, which demonstrates the role of these three proteins in protecting against apoptosis won't apply directly to cancer treatment, but will shed light on the gene networks responsible for regulating apoptosis, which will increase the odds of us learning how to turn it back on for cancer cells.
This is part of the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
that would be the point. triggering it in cancer stem cells means you can excise a mass and the remaining cells die off.
Re:Cancer applications? (Score:5, Informative)
Triggering apoptosis is the ultimate goal in cancer treatment. When a normal cell examines itself, and finds that it is genetically different, it will trigger apoptosis in order to sacrifice itself for the good of the being. Tumorigenic cells want to die, but for some reason the apoptosis mechanism never gets triggered, or is triggered and does not work. Therefore if researchers better understand what triggers apoptosis, then tumorigenic cells can be examined for those missing proteins. Perhaps if the apoptosis mechanism can be fixed, we will have a cure for the majority of cancer. There will still be a small number of tumorigenic cells which don't know they are different, thus have a perfectly working apoptosis mechanism which was never triggered.
Lets try putting this in computer terms. Say when you copy a file by downloading it off the internet, the file itself wants to ensure you have an exact duplicate. Therefore the file performs its own CRC check once it is downloaded. If it fails the CRC check, it deletes itself and you have to download another copy. Now imagine this is a file sharing operation, thus your copy gets shared with many others who are downloading the file from you. If your copy became corrupt in the download process, yet didn't delete itself, a corrupt version of the file would be spread across the Internet (Pandemonium! Cats and dogs sleeping together! Chaos!). Thus wouldn't you want to fix the broken mechanism so that the corrupt file deleted itself, so that the process is started over? Unfortunately there is also a minuscule chance that a corrupt file will generate an identical CRC value thus never triggering the deletion.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Cancer death of aging kill or save by immortality (Score:2, Interesting)
That's what I'd name my music show (Score:1)
Immunization? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Nothing says fun like knowing you're just one big tumor.
Re: (Score:1)
Not quite (Score:4, Informative)
The proteins identified in the paper protect against apoptosis. If you were to inhibit them, your cells would be more susceptible to apoptosis, not more resistant (which they show using a knockout mouse). More importantly though, apoptosis is an essential process in both development and regulation (particularly the immune response). Indiscriminately inhibiting the apoptotic process would be detrimental to the organism as a whole (resulting in death, not the protection from).
Let's say your body produced neutralizing antibodies to the three proteins (or better yet, you inject humanized antibodies that targeted the proteins), the antibodies would still have to penetrate the cell in order to see their target. You would be much better off making a tat-fusion protein of a dominant-negative form of the protein.
Lastly, we've already identified several molecules that are important for apoptosis. One catagory of such proteins is call the Caspases [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:1)
"Millions wish for immortality who wouldn't know what to do with themselves on a slow Sunday afternoon"
- A quote a read somewhere by someone I don't remember
immortality available to who? (Score:3)
with over 6 billion people on earth just think if everyone got immortality and everyone making babies soon earth will be standing room only - yowsa!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:immortality available to who? (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, obviously that stinks of china's "one baby" policy... but if people aren't willing to stop having babies on their own, either someone else has to stop having babies for them, or more people have to die. There is just not enough room for all the babies people want to have, sometimes. And if people aren't dying of old age... well then they can't keep making babies.
On a completely retarded sci-fi note... if we assume that we continue the trend of the west evolving into tall blond beautiful people, we stop aging about 20 and get quasi-immortality, and we advance science to the point where it looks like magic to most people and then integrate it into our biology and then our genetics... and then undergo an apocalypse so we forgot all this ever happened... Well then "we" get to be elves while people who didn't get (technology-so-advanced-it's-indistinguishable-from) magic, quasi-immortality, and a distinct look get to be regular humans. It could happen!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I for one believe that steps should be taken RIGHT NOW to decrease natality all over the world. The population lives longer, consumes more and more resources, it is a survival step to at least stabilize the world population.
Re: (Score:1)
On the upside, Soylent Green is actually quite tasty, despite what the press says.
Re:immortality available to who? (Score:5, Informative)
Programmed cell death happens in cells that are ready to die because they have become damaged or non-functional in some way. If you stop this natural mechanism you won't get immortality, you get a body that dies much faster, probably within weeks.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not quite sure how this was labelled "informative" since apoptosis is critical to development of every part of the body, if your cells didn't die, you would have a problem with 'fusion' and not develop your body parts properly (look at the toes), it's the sam
Re: (Score:1)
Low, low prices on immortality (Score:1)
How it works (Score:1, Funny)
-1 Offtopic
-1 Troll
Actual article text (Score:5, Informative)
Wow. Article actually references the 'Hax'. (Score:2)
So, basically, this disease occurs because one doesn't have "teh Hax(1)".
Some brief background (Score:5, Informative)
a) Cancer. This is the big one. Your body has a natural defense against cancer - cells that would become cancerous undergo apoptosis and die. Only when this defense fails do you actually get cancer.
b) Viral Infections. Viruses (and a few bacteria, but it's not the same thing) get inside the individual cells of your body and take them over to make viruses. Again, your body defends itself by inducing apoptosis in affected cells - the virus will typically contain genes to try and prevent this.
c) Some degenerative diseases result from apoptosis being triggerred improperly in certain cells (Parkinsons' disease probably works this way.)
d) Aptoptosis plays a major role in normal human development; if this goes wrong, this may cause certain development defects.
Wikipedia Link (Score:1)
Hax1, Pac1 and that other protein just help sequester this guy.
Hell yeah! (Score:1)
Progress is progress ... (Score:2)
But what about... (Score:1)