Slashdot Mirror
Breeding Cancer-Proof Mice
Bob Vila's Hammer writes "In an article at New Scientist, research scientists at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine in North Carolina have been able to breed a cancer-proof mouse. The lucky new finds, some 700 cancer-proof mice, have the ability to destroy numerous different kinds of cancer cells in their bodies very efficiently without the use of T-cells (white blood cells). Instead the body's innate immune system attacks the tumor cells and ruptures them with neutrophils and macrophages. What is so astounding within early findings is that the power of these mice to resist cancer seems to be unlimited and as well, a genetic trait able to be passed down to further generations without the negative results of previous mouse breeds with autoimmune diseases."
It's awesome that we can do this, and the implications are incredible if we can apply them to humans, but I wonder if we are going to build a breed of super cancer proof humans and then find out that there is actually a reason why we produce cancers., "Oh, I get it, so THAT what cancer was for..."
I'm not sure about making ANY modification to humans that is hereditary. If there's a problem with this cancer solution, it would basically affect everybody, and we'd all be screwed.
Karma: Excellent (fuck, even in the future moderation doesn't work!)
If only we could breed a friendly virus that would attack cancer cells in the host body...but then I guess we'd have to make another virus to kill that one when we're done with it, and so on, and so on...
--- If we knew half the things we shouldn't we'd stop wishing we knew it all
But how many buttons does it have? Are they programable?
A Multiplayer Strategy Game for Mac OS X, Windows, and Linux
Researchers today announced the development of a cancer proof mouse. In an excellent report, 1000 mice were bred, none of which developed cancer. Unfortunately, their average life span was 12.3 minutes.
The last remaining humans have been enslaved by a breed of mice that developed the ability to self-heal when attacked...the mice escaped from a lab in 2003 where they had been bred to be cancer-proof...unfortunately, nobody noticed the other "side effects" ;-)
Seriosuly, though...I lost a parent to cancer at a young age, so it'd be nice to see some solid progress on this front.
-psy
There goes all my cancer research if I can't get those vermin to come down with it. Dammit no matter how much sacharine I feed them they just seem fine.
I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
Anyone else here ever had a mouse or rat that died of cancer? I haven't had one yet that didn't die of huge cancerous tumors. Does anyone know the standard rate of cancer in small rodents, because if it's fairly high, I REALLY hope that they don't let this trait out of the lab and into the sewers/fields.
sigs are dumb.
And what happens if these mice & the mice bred by Harvard (that are incredibly susceptible to cancer) mate? Do they implode?
My rats have all died from upper respiratory or tumors. However, I wouldn't worry about it: rats and mice in the wild don't live long enough for cancer to be serious break on their population growth.
Mice and rats in the wild don't die of cancer. Usually they get eaten. Sometimes they pick up other diseases. If nearly all human beings were eaten by some creature higher on the food chain--say, dragons--before the age of thirty, humans wouldn't have to worry about cancer, either. Lab animals only get cancer when
a) they are kept in clean cages and cared for so that they live for years beyond their 'normal' lifespan,
b) researchers deliberately induce tumour formation, and/or
c) the mice have been bred (or genetically altered a la Harvard mouse) specifically to be susceptible to cancer.
~Idarubicin
Maybe this was the cause of the resistance.
Most of the mice that are the subject of cancer research are "Harvard mice". As a previous post noted normal mice dont have to worry about cancer, because they get eaten before getting old enough to have cancer. So, normal mice evolve in ways to evade predators.
For the "Harvard mice" the only threat is cancer. So maybe those mice have finaly evolved to avoid the only thing that is a threat to them: cancer.
Im not here now... Im out KILLING pepperoni
In reference to (a)...
By that logic then the only reason why cancer is a problem in humans is because we are living longer than "normal". I guess that makes sense though, since we didn't always live well into our 70's.
So then the solution for humans is either selective breeding programs or genetic manipulation? or maybe we creat a lifespan law. Anyone who lives to see the age of say...65 has 5 years to live before they are "put to sleep" as they say in the animal welfare biz.
Those are some scary ideas, but are the only ones that I can think of, maybe I am being short sighted.
Beer Die is the game of champions Learning To walk my own path.
I humbly bow before our new mouse masters and I freely offer the services of my neighbors and friends. They will make fine additions in the nesting pits.
May I please have my frontal lobotomy if I bring back the ashtrays?
It's one of the perqs of being a predator. If you're at the top of the food chain, you get to die of natural causes. Also, from the standpoint of evolution, anything that happens to us after age thirty-five, health-wise, is totally irrelevant because it won't interfere with our ability to procreate and at least start raising young. Since most cancers strike later in life, there has never been any selection pressure to breed it out.
So then the solution for humans is either selective breeding programs or genetic manipulation? or maybe we creat a lifespan law. Anyone who lives to see the age of say...65 has 5 years to live before they are "put to sleep" as they say in the animal welfare biz. Those are some scary ideas, but are the only ones that I can think of, maybe I am being short sighted.
Yes, those are the only solutions, if you want to completely eliminate the incidence of cancer. Does that policy make sense, though? "We're going to kill you know, because otherwise you might get cancer and die later." Thanks, but I'll take my chances.
~Idarubicin
...one large step for INVINCIBLE MICE
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Ya, I had a pet rat that died of cancer. But it was four years old at that point and the typical rat lifespan is two years.
I'd be interested to hear what the lifespans of these mice are. I've heard a hypothesis that a lot of the aging process is the result of things our bodies do to avoid cancer. It's promising that they mentioned the mice do not suffer from auto-immune disorders, but I'd like to know more.
*ducks*
Breaking news, A lab rat today died of natural causes (a tomcat ate him.)
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
There goes my patent on a carcinogen mousetrap!
Will we be able to benefit directly from this research in the form of a 'cure' along similar lines for humans? Or are we merely planning on breeding the mice to develop other forms of treatments which won't require human genetic retrofitting? It sounds rather wonderful, really, but cancer-free mice that had to be bred in the lab via eugenic mousemaking seems to have limited application if the only way to make humans immune to cancers would be to genetically engineer them that way. Would we continue to be human at that point, or would we finally have crossed over to Homo sapiens superiori. ? I'm just wondering the "What next?" implications this has.
There is no need to 'breed out cancer' in humanity. The AMA and the Pharmaceutical companies have been lying to the american public for years, and have used their incredible lobbying power to block FDA reports that indicate the cancer-fighting power of the vitamin B17. If you really want a good book to read, as well as some mind-altering information about the 'cancer conspiracy' and why TREATING cancer is far more profitable than CURING it, go to www.worldwithoutcancer.org or do a search on AMAZON.COM for 'World Without Cancer'. It will change your beliefs!
My sister had a mouse, once. It had a tumour almost as large as itself on it's hip.
Unfortunately it died because she forgot to feed it, rather than from the cancer.
You could not be more wrong. You are suggesting that cancer has a PURPOSE in organisms. In fact, it is a failure in the blueprints of a cell.
What follows is pure Zavatonian speculation based on my observations.
Cancer is whathappens when a cell forgets how to be a specialized cell and how to die. It is one of the things that can happen when the blueprints to make the cell become seriously damaged. By blueprints, I mean the DNA and/or RNA. A cancerous cell is an unspecialized cell that proceeds with a cell's basic needs - to get food and to reproduce. Those are the most basic requirements of cells. Many things can damage DNA or RNA. Certain viruses, radiation (sunlight), chemicals and free radicals are known to cause damage to cells.
What cancer essentially is is a malfunction in our cells' programming. Cancer and tumor cells secret TGF (Tumor Growth Factor) to get a blood (food) supply and then they just keep reproducing.
If you assume that cancer has a purpose in the body then it appears that you do not understand the nature of cancer or the essential mechanisms behind it.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.
Fact: *BSD is dying