Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Breeding Cancer-Proof Mice

Posted by timothy on from the still-not-drop-proof-though dept.

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."

12 of 43 comments (clear)

  1. This is great, but I wonder... by clambake · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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..."

    1. Re:This is great, but I wonder... by aqkiva · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Cancer has been around in the human population also. One would imagine that we would have evolved to be resistant also like these mice if it was easy and stable to do so. It may not be "Oh, cancer is good" but rather, "Defending against cancer is bad." Who knows if these mice are normal otherwise? Maybe for every cancer cell that gets killed, a brain cell goes along with it.

    2. Re:This is great, but I wonder... by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 5, Informative

      We are evolved to be resistant to cancers. Our cells have many built in mechanisims to prevent and destroy cancerous cells.

      Unfortunately, our body's mechanisms aren't quite good enough. But by that point in our life, we've already reproduced, and evolution can no longer help us.

    3. Re:This is great, but I wonder... by darkmeridian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Evolution would only select against stimuli that would inhibit the transfer of genetic material to future generations. Cancer does not necessarily do this. People get cancer, generally, after they have children. Thus, their "flawed" genes are not removed. Someone did an experiment with fruit flies and only let those who lived past a certain age reproduce. After a few generations, the new bred flies all lived really long. Hmmmm...

      Or perhaps cancer works to hone out weak immune systems. Should people with weak immune systems be honed out if it is what nature wants? How about people who can't see ten feet without glasses? Wouldn't we not exist without them. ("What's that sound?" ).

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    4. Re:This is great, but I wonder... by NonSequor · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Evolution involves more than just surviving to reproduce. You could say that longer lifetimes are "justified" evolutionarily if after reproducing the parents help out their children to ensure that they live to reproduce. For a species like fruit flies, I doubt there is much that the parents could do to help their young. But for humans, it is vital that the parents stick around.

      As another poster noted, we do have resistances to cancer. It is only when these mechanisms are overridden that cancer develops. One could say that medical science is just another mechanism that we have evolved to protect ourselves from cancer and other threats. Medicine is the result of our intellect, an evolution which has done great things for us so far.

      --
      My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
  2. virii instead of mice? by laard · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:virii instead of mice? by Momomoto · · Score: 4, Informative

      We're already doing that, and the results have been pretty promising. There's a good review written up by my honours supervisor here.

      --
      "Max, come over here. French-Canadian bean soup. I want to pay. Let them leave me alone." - Dutch Schultz
  3. 2033 AD by psyconaut · · Score: 3, Funny

    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

  4. Cancer-proof mice/rats? Bad news... by sladelink · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  5. This + Harvard Mouse by sameb · · Score: 3, Funny

    And what happens if these mice & the mice bred by Harvard (that are incredibly susceptible to cancer) mate? Do they implode?

  6. Re:Cancer-proof mice/rats? Bad news... by Idarubicin · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  7. The cause by Catskul · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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