Scientists Selectively Trigger Suicide In Cancer Cells (scitechdaily.com) 47
Long-time Slashdot reader Baron_Yam quotes SciTechDaily:
A team of researchers at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine reveals the first compound that directly makes cancer cells commit suicide while sparing healthy cells. The new treatment approach was directed against acute myeloid leukemia (AML) cells but may also have potential for attacking other types of cancers.... AML accounts for nearly one-third of all new leukemia cases and kills more than 10,000 Americans each year. The survival rate for patients has remained at about 30 percent for several decades, so better treatments are urgently needed.
The team's computer screened a million compounds to determine the 500 most likely to bind to the "executioner protein" in cells. They then synthesized them all in their lab and evaluated their effectiveness.
The team's computer screened a million compounds to determine the 500 most likely to bind to the "executioner protein" in cells. They then synthesized them all in their lab and evaluated their effectiveness.
Hopefully no side effects... (Score:2)
... otherwise, good news.
Re: Hopefully no side effects... (Score:4, Interesting)
With a 1/3 death rate, some side effects would likely be acceptable. That being said, the reason chemo patients lose their hair is because chemo kills all fast growing cells. Viagra also affects cells in other areas like the eyes. Triggering cell death could get really bad in a hurry if it unintentionally killed all of a class of cell in the body vital to survival.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. You read that right.
Although we all die sooner or later. The only question is how long we can put off our date with the reaper.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hopefully no side effects... (Score:5, Interesting)
If I read the article correctly, this compound can only trigger cell death in a cell already primed to die - the problem with cancer cells being they get primed but resist reception of the final 'go' signal. It really shouldn't kill any cells that aren't going to off themselves shortly anyway.
Then again, IANA oncology researcher.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Considering the side effects of the current treatment and its success rates, I'd say the side effects of this can be rather horrible before it's no longer a suitable replacement...
Re: (Score:2)
I should have been clearer (but I was in a hurry to win the coveted first-post award:-). Hopefully:
a) No side effects, not because it might not be worth it even with side effects up to a direct mortality rate lower than the disease it cures, but because hey, side effects generally suck. If I'm going to expend valuable "hope", I might as well hope to get a real live pony as to get a tiny stuffed unicorn. (OK, not the best metaphor -- I really don't want a real live pony because I'm not that fond of horses
Suicidal cells (Score:2, Troll)
Call the helpline.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, I must admit that whenever I read articles like that, I'm like "they cured cancer again?". Oh, and let me guess, it also charges you up in 5 minutes and triples your range?
We've made a little progress over the decades, but nowhere near what you'd expect from all the articles about revolutionary new treatments.
Re:so much research, so little real benefits (Score:5, Informative)
We've made a little progress over the decades, but nowhere near what you'd expect from all the articles about revolutionary new treatments.
Breast cancer survival rates have tripled [breastcancer.org]. Rates for some other cancers have improved even more.
There is much work to be done, but many "revolutionary new treatments" are indeed revolutionary. Other cancers are succumbing to steady incremental progress.
Re: (Score:2)
True enough. But I suspect that improvements in breast cancer survival are mostly due to better early detection. The deadliest cancers are those that escape detection until it's too late. Either you catch it in an early stage where you can remove a tumor and be done with it - or you eventually die, with rare exceptions, I guess. One of these days, one of these revolutionary approaches will yield a treatment that can be administered at rates that make a dent in survival. And at 65, with both parents los
Re: (Score:3)
But I suspect that improvements in breast cancer survival are mostly due to better early detection.
Early detection works better because mammograms have improved in both cost and accuracy, especially at distinguishing between malignant tumors and benign growths. Why have mammograms and other diagnostic tools improved? Answer: research.
Re: (Score:2)
many companies and researches are living the good life ....
That is a ridiculous argument. Anyone smart and innovative enough to contribute to oncology research is going to be well paid in any profession. If we don't pay them well, they will go elsewhere.
do you really think all those research dollars are well spent??
I have a sister and aunt that are breast cancer survivors. My mom is a colon cancer survivor. I support spending more on cancer research.
If you look at the overall cost of cancer to our nation, spending more to find cures and preventions is a total no-brainer.
Other areas of medical research were a cost benefit s
Re: (Score:1)
I support spending tons more on cancer research, and much less on pink ribbons.
Re: (Score:2)
This article is about one particular kind of cancer.
That kind of cancer is called leukemia.
And that particular kind of cancer has about 16 different variations which basically only share one part in the name: leukemia.
The improvement is for exactly one kind of leukemia.
If you dismiss the huge advances mankind made in cancer treatment during the last 30 or 50 years: then you are extremely uninformed.
Basically every ex cancer patient I know would have died 20 or 30 years ago ... miserably. Now they live ... s
Re: (Score:2)
P.S. and don't forget that stuff like lung cancer comes mainly from smoking, basically *all* cancers come mostly from smoking or other environmental poisons.
You can improve treatment as much as you want, but still people go out of their room in the hospital and continue to smoke: while under treatment.
Thee is only one cure for that: magic. I guess we are just another 10 years away from that.
Re: (Score:1)
Leukemia is a different beast though. The risk factors for Leukemia are fairly weak (Familial, Radiation exposure, Smoking....)
Re: (Score:1)
The point is that this is a different treatment than say concocting another chemo combo.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they are still dying ... and that probably will never change.
After all Leukemia e.g. is caused amoung other causes by Plutonium in the bone marrow.
While you can treat the actual cancer, you hardly can find that small dust speck of Plutonium and remove it.
Re: (Score:3)
It's almost like it's a non-trivial problem that exists in many distinct forms for every tissue present in the human body.
Re: (Score:1)
... maybe less pay without real practical results??
Life-saving technologies are for the rich, not for the plebeians. Just think, if you started saving people with runaway birthrates, so little to contribute they have to be employed doing menial tasks to prevent from rioting and looting, and generally incompetent, what happens next? We're already well on our way to Idiocracy, we don't need to make them live/reproduce longer - we need to focus on extending the lives of nerds so the normal population can be replaced over time.
Who funded the research? (Score:5, Insightful)
Would it be grants from the U.S. Government by any chance? Kinda sounds like it.
From http://www.einstein.yu.edu/new... [yu.edu]:
Funding for this research was provided by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), part of the National Institutes of Health (R01CA178394), and awards from the Sidney Kimmel Foundation for Cancer Research, the Gabrielle’s Angels Foundation for Cancer Research, and the Pershing Square Sohn Cancer Research Alliance. Partial support was also provided by the Albert Einstein Cancer Center, which is funded by the NCI.
I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. The one where the protocol is patented and licensed to a private company that will charge obscene amounts of money for the medicine.
Your tax dollars working hard for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone has to actually test the thing. That doesn't come cheap. Until governments start doing this on their own (including those socialist utopias), then individuals will have to risk large amounts of their money. They won't do that for free.
Re:Who funded the research? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The patent itself is not the problem.
The question is a fair licensing schema.
Actually, the government should patent it, and hand out licenses for 10% of turn over or something. That would beat the amount of taxes any company would pay by a magnitude.
Re: (Score:2)
It should be patented. It should just be patented by the U.S. Government, and royalties paid by the companies who use the info to bring a product to market.
I could even see some kind of special patent type for the government, maybe perpetual _until_ it pays for itself (including wages, etc.), then is free for all to use. (But being free to use would then maybe have some sort of price restriction.. No price restriction, you keep paying the government.) That way, the very expensive long term basic research
Re: (Score:2)
the other methos (Score:1)
I really prefer the other method of cultivating your cells in a lab and teach them how to fight the cancer, then use them in your body, that is more safe and makes you stronger, not suicidal. And that method is already been used around the world.
Scientists Trigger Suicide In Cancer Cells (Score:2)
I know a drug that does this already (Score:2)