Cancer Cells Use 'Tiny Tentacles' To Suck Mitochondria Out of Immune Cells (scitechdaily.com) 63
Hmmmmmm shares a report from SciTechDaily: Investigators from Brigham and Women's Hospital and MIT used the power of nanotechnology to discover a new way that cancer can disarm its would-be cellular attackers by extending out nanoscale tentacles that can reach into an immune cell and pull out its powerpack. Slurping out the immune cell's mitochondria powers up the cancer cell and depletes the immune cell. The new findings, published in Nature Nanotechnology, could lead to new targets for developing the next generation of immunotherapy against cancer.
To investigate how cancer cells and immune cells interact at the nanoscale level, [corresponding author Shiladitya Sengupta, PhD, and co-director of the Brigham's Center for Engineered Therapeutics] and colleagues set up experiments in which they co-cultured breast cancer cells and immune cells, such as T cells. Using field-emission scanning electron microscopy, they caught a glimpse of something unusual: Cancer cells and immune cells appeared to be physically connected by tiny tendrils, with widths mostly in the 100-1000 nanometer range. (For comparison, a human hair is approximately 80,000 to 100,000 nanometers). In some cases, the nanotubes came together to form thicker tubes. The team then stained mitochondria -- which provide energy for cells -- from the T cells with a fluorescent dye and watched as bright green mitochondria were pulled out of the immune cells, through the nanotubes, and into the cancer cells.
"By carefully preserving the cell culture condition and observing intracellular structures, we saw these delicate nanotubes and they were stealing the immune cells' energy source," said co-corresponding author Hae Lin Jang, PhD, a principal investigator in the Center for Engineered Therapeutics. "It was very exciting because this kind of behavior had never been observed before in cancer cells. This was a tough project as the nanotubes are fragile and we had to handle the cells very gently to not break them." The researchers then looked to see what would happen if they prevented the cancer cells from hijacking mitochondria. When they injected an inhibitor of nanotube formation into mouse models used for studying lung cancer and breast cancer, they saw a significant reduction in tumor growth.
To investigate how cancer cells and immune cells interact at the nanoscale level, [corresponding author Shiladitya Sengupta, PhD, and co-director of the Brigham's Center for Engineered Therapeutics] and colleagues set up experiments in which they co-cultured breast cancer cells and immune cells, such as T cells. Using field-emission scanning electron microscopy, they caught a glimpse of something unusual: Cancer cells and immune cells appeared to be physically connected by tiny tendrils, with widths mostly in the 100-1000 nanometer range. (For comparison, a human hair is approximately 80,000 to 100,000 nanometers). In some cases, the nanotubes came together to form thicker tubes. The team then stained mitochondria -- which provide energy for cells -- from the T cells with a fluorescent dye and watched as bright green mitochondria were pulled out of the immune cells, through the nanotubes, and into the cancer cells.
"By carefully preserving the cell culture condition and observing intracellular structures, we saw these delicate nanotubes and they were stealing the immune cells' energy source," said co-corresponding author Hae Lin Jang, PhD, a principal investigator in the Center for Engineered Therapeutics. "It was very exciting because this kind of behavior had never been observed before in cancer cells. This was a tough project as the nanotubes are fragile and we had to handle the cells very gently to not break them." The researchers then looked to see what would happen if they prevented the cancer cells from hijacking mitochondria. When they injected an inhibitor of nanotube formation into mouse models used for studying lung cancer and breast cancer, they saw a significant reduction in tumor growth.
Mice cancer is not cured yet? (Score:3)
Re:Mice cancer is not cured yet? (Score:4, Funny)
California is a really dangerous place cancer-wise: thousands of substances that are perfectly safe elsewhere cause cancer when in California.
Re:Mice cancer is not cured yet? (Score:4, Informative)
California is a really dangerous place cancer-wise: thousands of substances that are perfectly safe elsewhere cause cancer when in California.
California is a really safe place cancer-wise: thousands of carcinogens are banned in California that have been rendered safe elsewhere in the US by simply changing regulations and increasing acceptable levels of these substances to quantities above what causes cancer in humans.
Re:Mice cancer is not cured yet? (Score:5, Insightful)
California lost credibility when they decided coffee had to be labeled as causing cancer due to containing acrylamide. Yes, coffee contains a carcinogen. Yet the net effect of coffee is to improve longevity. Though the decision was rolled back, people discovered California's legislation seemed to be focused on individual molecules rather than their actual effect (in products) on human health/longevity. The warnings are just noise, like a "danger, floor is wet" sign that's displayed regardless of the actual floor conditions.
Re: (Score:3)
like a "danger, floor is wet" sign that's displayed regardless of the actual floor conditions.
I’m not sure what all the complaining is about, the humidity was never 0% and even if the flooring won’t absorb water, it’s touching it. Id agree people are reading too much into these warnings, they won’t look where they are going - they need more “keep your eyes on what you’re doing” signs.
Sometimes democracy hiccups (Score:1)
Voters voted in a law that requires notices if any cancer causing substances are detected. The problem is that detection tech got better since the ballot passed. The solution would be to vote in a threshold of some kind to replace that law.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. A more useful policy would involve risk analysis, not just a table of bad substances. But that would cost money. Doing it effectively would cost a ton of money. We don't even have a consensus on whether certain foods are unhealthy.
Re:Mice cancer is not cured yet? (Score:5, Informative)
The substances are not banned, but required to carry a label. The fact that they cast the net so wide and in some cases without particularly strong evidence about the substances has rendered the label useless, because no one takes it seriously as a warning and thus no company fears having to put the warning on. Particularly since they add so many substances so frequently, companies decide to put the label on even if they not aware of any currently applicable substances in their product (the work to ensure the Prop65 list is not applicable can bee huge, and knowing that even if they verified they are currently in the clear, they could incur that cost next year with a new list).
They don't have the cancer causing ingredients?? (Score:2)
Grievous harm has been done., as a citizen of the USA, which ones please, because I want to sue for the false labeling of these products saying they contain ingredients with certain properties that they in fact do not.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, because lots of things are "known to the State of California" to cause cancer. Nobody that matters knows it but that's irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Do mice still get cancer in California?
Of course, mice still get cancer in California. The problem is that the mice are unable to read the plentiful posted and clearly worded Proposition 65 warnings about carcinogens. Note that there have been no reports of cancer in mice from NIMH.
But I need that! (Score:2)
BRAAINS!
Re: (Score:2)
Cue the obvious.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
giga scale observations (Score:1)
this finding is fantastic, there is probably some potential to deliver special types of poison to cancer cells by fooling its tenticles..
I have observed this behaviour on a giga scale though, women sucking energy out of men with their blood thirsty tenticles...
Re:giga scale observations (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the most bizarre observation I can think of. Usually cancer works by hijacking natural body processes, or making small modifications in pre-existing genes. Which means that this kind of functionality already exists in the body in a similar (but beneficial) form. What on earth would this be doing?
Re: (Score:2)
...Which means that this kind of functionality already exists in the body in a similar (but beneficial) form. What on earth would this be doing?
I thought the same thing, maybe there are some circumstances where this is a protection mechanism, like in late stages of starvation essential calls depleting energy from inessential ones. It certainly sounds like an area for research.
Re: (Score:3)
Possibly its disused functionality from an ancestor that is still in the genome but never normally activated?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
ok, but you didn't answer the question lol
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:giga scale observations (Score:5, Interesting)
When you exercise, the muscle cells "tone up" by acquiring mitochondria from available cells and what's loosely around the muscle - after all, being the powerhouse of the cell, muscle cells that have more of them can increase strength and stamina.
Mitochondria are weird - they have their own DNA, which is why we believe mitochondrial cells existed as a standalone item being able to produce energy, and other cells merely acquired them into themselves. Resulting in eukaryote cells having two sets of DNA - the DNA in the nucleus, and DNA in the mitochondria. (Not all cells have nuclei to store DNA in, just eukaryote cells like those that make up human cells)
There is evidence to show that the passing around of mitochondria is something that happens often between cells. And muscles might actually form power grids linking their mitochondria together to help power the entire muscle.
So it appears that passing around of mitochondria is something that is a normal bodily function.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm hoping that there is more research done into mitochondria and specifically into fixing them when they go wrong. Sadly a lot more people seem to be suffering from that kind of thing due to Long COVID. I used to be in a tiny minority but now it seems like millions of people have the same problem.
Re: (Score:1)
Not so fun fact, there are so goddamn many ways for the body to get sick rare diseases aren’t rare - your odds of having one is about 1 in 20 but your odds of gettin
Re:giga scale observations (Score:4, Interesting)
There's only one option I can think of. Maybe we had this the wrong way round. IIRC, it's normally imagined mitochondria were originally parasitic or symbiotic entities that entered cells. What if the cells that became eukaryotes were predators in the early single-celled world? In other words, the cancers are indeed activating a pre-existing mechanism, one that captured and enslaved DNA from other types of early cell?
The nearest I can think of in modern cells is how bacteria can snag sections of DNA from other bacteria. (Yes, they can snag DNA from viruses too, which is the mechanism used now in genetic engineering. However, viruses infect the bacterium first, so that's a different problem from grabbing a chunk of genetic code from a distinct cell.) Indeed, I imagine the core mechanism for doing so will turn out to be similar.
There must be some differences, if cancer cells are simply moving whole mitochondria and not chunks of the nucleic DNA as well, but mechanisms tend to appear once and get reused in part or in whole.
Re: (Score:2)
That hypothesis has been around for a while, that an ancient organism tried to consume a bacteria, but it was somehow able to survive and continued to live as mitochondria. It would only need to happen once in the right configuration for it to give the attacking cell an overwhelming advantage in the future and rapidly multiply.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for that! If we imagine such a scenario, then cancer cells pillaging mitochondria makes perfect sense.
(Oops. On the bright side, it means my brain still works, even if I should have researched that better. My bad.)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the most bizarre observation I can think of. Usually cancer works by hijacking natural body processes, or making small modifications in pre-existing genes. Which means that this kind of functionality already exists in the body in a similar (but beneficial) form. What on earth would this be doing?
This is the question that now needs to be answered. Because it may all be well and good to stop cancer cells from doing this if it's possible to target something that inhibits only the cancer cells, if it turns out that the body uses this process in a widespread fashion that simply no one has detected until now, then inhibitiing this with a drug that prevents it generally could have severe repercussions for the patient if this process is required for human life.
Now that said, if it does turn out that this
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of cancer medicines are poisons that just happen to poison cancer cells a little more effectively than regular cells.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course.
But, there's a difference between how Oxaliplatin disrupts cell walls more effectively on cancer cells and how other poisons may kill everything or disrupt something everywhere that ultimately leads to death.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: giga scale observations (Score:2)
Does this give anyone else (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Does this give anyone else (Score:5, Funny)
I have trouble even aknowledging that this movie existed, much less having flashbacks to it.
Trojan Mitochondria (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm, poison pill. It might work. If this mechanism isn't dealt with, it's going to make immunotherapy much more complicated as basically programming the immune system to mass attack the cancer is just providing it with a lot more energy and I doubt excess mitochondria would be sufficient to cause a cancer to overheat. I'm wondering about other attacks.
Now there has been lots of research on people trapped under ice and how to revive them safely, and of having to give premature babies oxygen/argon mixes caus
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
By that you mean more accurate than anything you've ever written.
Re:Real science please? (Score:5, Informative)
"Tiny Tentacles"? We're talking cells here, right? (Score:2)
We're talking cells here.
Headline should read:
'Tiny' Cancer Cells Use 'Tiny Tentacles' To Suck 'Tiny' Mitochondria Out of 'Tiny' Immune Cells
Or you could just assume we are grownups and drop the 'Tiny'.
Doesn't seem to be a simple mutation (Score:5, Interesting)
Seems unlikely the whole complex behaviour is the result of mutation, this must be dormant behaviour in cells turned on because of a mutation.
Is it dormant because it has become useless during evolution, or because it's used by some cells in the body we are not aware of though?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Biologically, I like your idea... that makes sense. The description and pictures of this thing make it seem so unnatural at first... all I could imagine was the 1978 version of the Body Snatchers with all the fungus looking tendrils all over the pod people.
Re: (Score:3)
Tunneling nanotubes for cell to cell transfer of organelles and vesicles have been known about for a while. Reference: https://www.science.org/doi/10... [science.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Many bacteria - even between different species - exchange DNA via "a kind of sex".
This mechanism looks pretty similar to that.
Tentacles? (Score:2)
Well this is going to put a spin on the Cells At Work anime...
Treatment (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
We need fake, sticky mitochondria that "reel in" the cancer cells for destruction.
Cellular Hentai (Score:3)
There is no defense (Score:2)
The cancer, once deprived, will just vote itself a new form of revenue.
This has a Tribble quality to it (Score:2)
"Jim! I think I've got it. All we have to do is quit feeding them. We quit feeding them, they stop breeding!"
Now, all we need to do is figure out a way to beam them onto a Klingon vessel.
Metroids (Score:1)
wow. (Score:2)
Not something that I would imagined 40 years ago.
Coveting thy neighbor's ox, (Score:1)