• New method can destroy cancer cells in two hours
    56 replies, posted
[t]http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/dynamic/02912/cancer_final_2912838f.jpg[/t] Source: [URL]http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/health/new-method-can-kill-cancer-cells-in-two-hours-shows-study/article8785315.ece[/URL] [quote]Researchers have developed a new, non-invasive method that can kill cancer cells in two hours, an advance that may significantly help people with inoperable or hard-to-reach tumours as well as young children stricken with the deadly disease.The method involves injecting a chemical compound, nitrobenzaldehyde, into the tumour and allowing it to diffuse into the tissue. A beam of light is then aimed at the tissue, causing the cells to become very acidic inside and, essentially, “commit suicide”, researchers said. Within two hours, up to 95 per cent of the targeted cancer cells are dead or are estimated to be dead, they said.[/quote] This is very good news for those who have problems withstanding the rigors of conventional treatment, and even more so for inoperable tumors/tumors in hard to reach parts of the body. link to study: [URL]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3094320/[/URL] recent study abstract: [url]http://meetinglibrary.asco.org/content/170361-176[/url]
Now, what are the drawbacks that will lead to this procedure disappearing as quickly as it appeared?
[quote]causing the cells to become very acidic inside and, essentially, “commit suicide”, researchers said.[/quote] Wait I though that cancer cells overtook regulare cells, so won't this just dry the human body out of valurable resources?
Bullying the cancer cells into suicide.
[QUOTE=Tools;50617038]Wait I though that cancer cells overtook regulare cells, so won't this just dry the human body out of valurable resources?[/QUOTE] I'm not sure what you're getting at. Cancer cells are no longer valuable resources.
[QUOTE=Tools;50617038]Wait I though that cancer cells overtook regulare cells, so won't this just dry the human body out of valurable resources?[/QUOTE] Not sure what you mean but the procedure will stimulate some of the cancer cells death receptors causing them to commit apoptosis which is the cell version of suicide. The healthy cells around the cancer cells aren't targeted.
[QUOTE=Tools;50617038]Wait I though that cancer cells overtook regulare cells, so won't this just dry the human body out of valurable resources?[/QUOTE] strictly speaking, ordinary cells of the body have a fixed lifespan depending on what they're specialized as. A cancer cell has no such restriction of a fixed lifespan, which is where cell lines come in, such as HeLa, which is a mainstay for use in scientific research. Cancer cells are abnormal cells of the body which escape its ordinary regulatory mechanisms, and grow and proliferate uncontrollably to cause symptoms in an otherwise healthy individual. Because they grow so fast, they try to subvert nutritional demand by growing blood vessels to ensure more blood reaches the tumor, which in turn fuels more exponential uncontrolled growth. It's a vicious feedback loop which cannot be broken under ordinary circumstances. It's also important to note that despite all the precautions built into our bodies to ensure that cells cannot mutate and cause problems, it isnt by any means a perfect system, otherwise we wouldn't have cancer as a huge health problem to deal with. The ordinary cells arent being targeted, it's the over-expression of certain genomes in mutated cells that allow this treatment to work by the induction of cell death instead of using cytotoxic drugs or radiation therapy.
That abstract is a neat summary of why I stayed away from biochem/molecular biology. [editline]30th June 2016[/editline] Also the paper is 5 years old, not sure why the newspaper only picked it up now.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;50617094]That abstract is a neat summary of why I stayed away from biochem/molecular biology. [editline]30th June 2016[/editline] Also the paper is 5 years old, not sure why the newspaper only picked it up now.[/QUOTE] It's like learning a new language with all the terms and abbreviations, after a while you learn the important ones and it's like reading anything else. I hate the gene names though, always get them wrong. Also, if you want a real challenge, try taking theoretical physics :v:
[QUOTE=Karmah;50617020]Now, what are the drawbacks that will lead to this disappearing as quickly as it appeared?[/QUOTE] It's affordable All cancer is, basically, is just cells growing out of control. You would think we could disrupt that process. I guess it's distinguishing between good and bad cells that's the problem
[QUOTE=maeZtro;50617148]It's like learning a new language with all the terms and abbreviations, after a while you learn the important ones and it's like reading anything else. I hate the gene names though, always get them wrong. Also, if you want a real challenge, try taking theoretical physics :v:[/QUOTE] I actually find the physics that I've had to learn so far (mostly classical mechanics, electrodynamics, and quantum mechanics) fairly straightforward in the sense that everything derives from a small set of underlying principles. Biology, on the other hand, is more like a vast network of interconnected facts, all of which have to be learnt in order to make sense of anything.
I can kill cancer cells in seconds, just hand me a flamethrower. The real challenge is targeting only cancer cells. Since multiple different body cells may become cancerous, and even with that there are mutations in those cells which complicates that further
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;50617094]That abstract is a neat summary of why I stayed away from biochem/molecular biology. [editline]30th June 2016[/editline] Also the paper is 5 years old, not sure why the newspaper only picked it up now.[/QUOTE] my mistake, instead of linking to the new one I linked to an older journal page however only an abstract for the new study's available, op should be fixed now
Also, headline should really read "new method induces apoptosis in particular subline of two types of cancer cells", but that doesn't sound quite as impressive and no one will understand it. [editline]30th June 2016[/editline] Just saw the new abstract, now the title should read "new method kills particular line of cancer cells [i]in vitro[/i] and in a mouse model" but again that doesn't sound as impressive and still no one will understand it. [editline]30th June 2016[/editline] Actually, now that I read the actual article and not just the paper, it's actually surprisingly well-written. No exaggerated claims and other bullshit that often plagues science reporting in mainstream media.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;50617226]I actually find the physics that I've had to learn so far (mostly classical mechanics, electrodynamics, and quantum mechanics) fairly straightforward in the sense that everything derives from a small set of underlying principles. Biology, on the other hand, is more like a vast network of interconnected facts, all of which have to be learnt in order to make sense of anything.[/QUOTE] I have some friends who say the same thing, it's like there are two different kinds of people. I'm not fond of math and can't get into physics, I tried for 2 months at uni but I just couldn't follow the tutor and the six board long equations used to explain everything.
[QUOTE=BelatedGamer;50617071]I'm not sure what you're getting at. Cancer cells are no longer valuable resources.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=maeZtro;50617077]Not sure what you mean but the procedure will stimulate some of the cancer cells death receptors causing them to commit apoptosis which is the cell version of suicide. The healthy cells around the cancer cells aren't targeted.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Zonesylvania;50617088]strictly speaking, ordinary cells of the body have a fixed lifespan depending on what they're specialized as. A cancer cell has no such restriction of a fixed lifespan, which is where cell lines come in, such as HeLa, which is a mainstay for use in scientific research. Cancer cells are abnormal cells of the body which escape its ordinary regulatory mechanisms, and grow and proliferate uncontrollably to cause symptoms in an otherwise healthy individual. Because they grow so fast, they try to subvert nutritional demand by growing blood vessels to ensure more blood reaches the tumor, which in turn fuels more exponential uncontrolled growth. It's a vicious feedback loop which cannot be broken under ordinary circumstances. It's also important to note that despite all the precautions built into our bodies to ensure that cells cannot mutate and cause problems, it isnt by any means a perfect system, otherwise we wouldn't have cancer as a huge health problem to deal with. The ordinary cells arent being targeted, it's the over-expression of certain genomes in mutated cells that allow this treatment to work by the induction of cell death instead of using cytotoxic drugs or radiation therapy.[/QUOTE] I think what he's hinting at is its likelihood of attacking healthy cells as well.
[QUOTE=TestECull;50617377]I think what he's hinting at is its likelihood of attacking healthy cells as well.[/QUOTE] it says directly in the article that the method they used is very selective and targets only tumor cells.
[QUOTE=TestECull;50617377]I think what he's hinting at is its likelihood of attacking healthy cells as well.[/QUOTE] Yeah, the death receptors in the healthy cells aren't being triggered by the procedure, that's what so cool about this because normaly you would have to damage a lot of the healthy surrounding tissue to get the cancer out. It's not for all types of cancer though and it isn't properly tested in humans but it's a nice step forward.
No matter what cure they come out with I will still be upset because it will have been too late to save my father.
The best part is that there will never be a cure for cancer released to the public. Because it's less profitable than a long-term treatment.
[QUOTE=TomoAlien;50617772]The best part is that there will never be a cure for cancer released to the public. Because it's less profitable than a long-term treatment.[/QUOTE] There is no "cure for cancer", because cancer isn't one disease. It's a broad umbrella term for any disease that involves uncontrolled cell division leading to the formation of malignant neoplasms. Treatments for one particular type of cancer don't necessarily have to (and often do not) work for other types of cancer. Saying "a cure for cancer" is like saying "a cure for car breakdowns". It doesn't mean anything. Also, I'm not sure where you're getting the idea of a cure being less profitable than a long-term treatment. The demand for a cure will be incredible, you can bet your ass that whoever develops this cure will be charging more than enough for it to be profitable.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;50617797]There is no "cure for cancer", because cancer isn't one disease. It's a broad umbrella term for any disease that involves uncontrolled cell division leading to the formation of malignant neoplasms. Treatments for one particular type of cancer don't necessarily have to (and often do not) work for other types of cancer. Saying "a cure for cancer" is like saying "a cure for car breakdowns". It doesn't mean anything. Also, I'm not sure where you're getting the idea of a cure being less profitable than a long-term treatment. The demand for a cure will be incredible, you can bet your ass that whoever develops this cure will be charging more than enough for it to be profitable.[/QUOTE] Of course there's no universal cure. However, the possibility of a more powerful treatment is very much real, but the thing is... how profitable would that be? I have low trust in people, especially when there's large money at stake.
[QUOTE=TomoAlien;50617860]Of course there's no universal cure. However, the possibility of a more powerful treatment is very much real, but the thing is... how profitable would that be? I have low trust in people, especially when there's large money at stake.[/QUOTE] Why would it not be profitable? If you come up with something that there is huge demand for, obviously everyone's going to want it. Patents will grant you exclusivity over selling that drug as well, so you effectively have a state-sanctioned market monopoly for however long that patent lasts, and you can charge however much you want (in the US at least). The most recent and obvious example of this is Gilead's sofosbuvir (in 2013) and, later, ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (in 2014). Both were massive improvements over what was previously available for the treatment of hepatitis C infections (higher cure rate, less side effects, lower treatment time), and were rightly marketed with exorbitant prices. Gilead's revenue increased by over 100% over 2014, an obvious indicator of financial success. The ethical virtues of such a system can be debated, but you cannot argue that it gives a huge financial incentive for companies to come up with ever-more effective cures.
Hopefully this method can be used against sarcomas. My past wife fought against synovial sarcoma for years for years before passing away this year. I only hope that a good alternative to current chemo lines can be found and made available soon.
[QUOTE=TomoAlien;50617860]Of course there's no universal cure. However, the possibility of a more powerful treatment is very much real, but the thing is... how profitable would that be? I have low trust in people, especially when there's large money at stake.[/QUOTE] Pharma companies are making more and more niche drugs to deal with rare forms of cancer. The amount of cash being put into R&D for cancer is insane. People are generally looking for an easy fix because a lot of these niche drugs are stupid expensive and difficult to manufacture, store, and administer. If someone had a magic bullet we would know about it already. The truth of the matter is we don't really have a good understanding of how a lot of these drugs work, or even how cancer cells behave. Some of the simplest and most common chemotherapeutic agents like [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platinum-based_antineoplastic"]platinum-based drugs[/URL] are only moderately understood in terms of their mechanism of action. T[URL="http://www.jci.org/articles/view/42088"]umors are often genetically diverse themselves[/URL], so not only will treatment vary from person to person, but also within the tumor populations themselves, and if that wasn't bad enough [URL="http://www.the-scientist.com?articles.view/articleNo/33640/title/Cancer-More-Diverse-than-Its-Genetics/"]even cells that are genetic clones can display different behaviors[/URL] from one another.
Huh, I have a friend who's working on the same sort of thing except it binds to cancerous DNA and then when activated by the light shatters the DNA causing cell failure Seems like these light activated anticancerous compounds are getting pretty common as far as research goes
Would I be wrong to say that cancer is the body having a memory leak?
[QUOTE=Mining Bill;50618898]Would I be wrong to say that cancer is the body having a memory leak?[/QUOTE] To put it simply yes. Its more like if a programmer accidentally removed a bit of code that tells a program to copy itself only once, and now its copying itself over and over until it fills up every bit of space. Also this is an interesting new method of a treatment that already exists. Ablation therapy is done in a multitude of ways.
[QUOTE=mecaguy03;50619299]To put it simply yes. Its more like if a programmer accidentally removed a bit of code that tells a program to copy itself only once, and now its copying itself over and over until it fills up every bit of space. Also this is an interesting new method of a treatment that already exists. Ablation therapy is done in a multitude of ways.[/QUOTE] This isn't ablation therapy, the cells are being induced to undergo apoptosis via introduction of a photosensitising agent followed by irradiation with light, although I don't know the exact mechanism of this.
[QUOTE=TomoAlien;50617772]The best part is that there will never be a cure for cancer released to the public. Because it's less profitable than a long-term treatment.[/QUOTE] Your logic is undeniable How about all those other cures for other things? Cancer is a broad thing. Cell division and cell death is a huge pathway. A fuck up anywhere in it could cause it to stop regulating itself and over divide and/or not respond to signals to kill itself (such as when it divides and pushes up against other cells too tightly) We don't see a universal cure because a universal cure would involve protecting our genome from external mutations and degradation, which so far is impossible.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.