Fighting Cancer With The Common Cold?

Roland Piquepaille writes "After 30 years of work, Saint Louis University researchers have genetically engineered a common cold virus to fight cancerous cells while leaving unaffected healthy ones. They received a patent for this research and clinical tests on humans will start soon, according to this news release. Dr. William Wold, chair of the department of molecular microbiology and immunology, received the patent No. 6,627,190 for his work. Preclinical testing has already been done so clinical trials should start soon. We can only hope they will be successful. This overview contains many more details and references about this potential cure for all kinds of cancer. [Note: this is a very different project from the one mentioned by a previous Slashdot post.]"

Comments

Obligatory

[Grave]

They can cure cancer but they can't cure the common cold?!

Re:Obligatory

[Justin205]

They can cure cancer but they can't cure the common cold?!

No, no, no. They could if they tried, but they need the common cold to cure the cancer. What do you want? A cold, or cancer?

Re:Obligatory

[iggymanz]

It's a question of priorities...before cancer or the common cold could be cured we first had to concentrate biomedical effort on making a pill that gives old farts a rock hard meatpipe. Now that that's out of the way, we can concentrate on curing viral infections, hereditary diseases, cancer, etc.

Re:Obligatory

[SEE]

Priorities?

Viagra was designed and developed in a research effort that was originally looking for anti-hypertension drugs, and was later refocused on anti-angina drugs. While the stage II clinical trial showed it was not as effective as hoped, it did discover a curious side effect. The priority was not to create an impotency drug; that was a foruitous side effect of what was otherwise seven years of wasted research and funding.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Must be Microsoft

[xintegerx]

"have genetically engineered a common cold virus"

Only a Microsoft Flu lab could make the claim that they genetically engineered a common cold virus, and all in the same sentence. It must be really hard to genetically engineer out of nothing, something... very... common.. Hmm.

I'm conflicted again

[BiggerIsBetter]

It's great that this is possible, but I'm not sure it should be patented. What ever happened to research for the good of mankind, and academic recognition?

I know medical research is expensive and all, and inventors/researchers need protection from having their ideas stolen, but what it means is that the technology can be held to ransom by the patent holder. "Yes we can save you, but it'll cost you $5000 a week for the rest of your life, etc."

Re:I'm conflicted again

[pvt_medic]

Yeah but then the cheap sollution will be just everyone has a big party once one of them has caught the flu and they all catch the communicable disease. It be very easy for (unless they put safeguards into place) for this to sweep across the nation... and no more cancer. Well i guess that is an idealistic view of things.

Helping the world benefit

[zoeblade]

Y'know, if I was smart enough to work out how to help people fight cancer, the last thing on my mind would be how to patent the technique. I'd want to help as many people as possible.

Interesting...

[sevensharpnine]

All of the news thus far looks to come right off of the press release put out by the pharmaceutical company funding the initial front. I have no doubt this is wonderful information for the relevant shareholders/venture capitalists.

But what about his work leading up to this? I don't read the microbiology journals (not that I would understand them), but I'll bet someone around here does. Is anything relevant to this project peer-reviewed? Have any of his methods been reproduced? Is there anything published relating to this project?

I don't want to sound too skeptical here, but this could be a seriously exciting discovery if 25% of the PR release were to be realized. But until I see some proof (and not a patent award, thanks), I'm going to assume this "scientific discovery" is another turkey-intestines into fuel story.

Makes sense

[teutonic_leech]

I did not RTFA, but from similar excerpts on the subject matter it is clear that they engineered the virus to only infect cancerous cells. The virus might be attracted to the increased level of telomerase that is being produced by cancer cells. Telomerase is used to replenish the expended telomeres on the end of the shoelaces-like DNA helixes. From what I know RNA attaches itself to the telomeres and starts recreating what it reads off. However, the place where it attaches itself does not get fully read, and therefore not re-created. Thus, the new molecule has a shorter telomere (the shiny end part on your shoelace). Now, when the end of the telomere is reached, the cell knows that it's time to commit senesence (suicide). Some guy called Hayflick figured that out in the 50's and that's why they call it the 'Hayflick limit', which is somewhere around 50 replications per cell (aka mitosis).
The problem is that cancer cells produce a lot more telomerase, which replenish their telomeres, so those suckers just won't die. If I would engineer a virus, I'd have it be attracted to that.
Anyway, just my 2 cents, maybe someone who really knows this stuff can elaborate on my layman explanation of this.

Re:Makes sense

[pikayou]

I think it's unlikely that the recombinant adenovirus they created is attracked by the overproduction of telomerase. I read both the article and their lab's page....they are very vague as to exactly how they target the virus specifically to cancerous cells. There are lots of ways to artificially kill cell in vivo, but cancer cells are almost always impossible to distinguish from the untransformed type. After reading the patent itself, they apparently placed the ADP (adenovirus death protein...the 'smart bomb') under the control of telomerase regulatory elements. Thus, any cell constituitively expressing telomerase (i.e. cancer cells) will be lysed by this virus. A couple concerns spring to mind: 1) how to eliminate the virus after treatment? Just because it's not lysing non-cancerous cells doesn't mean it can't infect them. 2) cells susceptible to adenoviruses. Adenoviruses enter through mucus membranes in the lungs, etc. and initially infect the epithelial layers. I think you might have trouble targeting these recombinant viruses to, say, brain or other kinds of cancer located in remote regions.

Economically Deficient

[Scoria]

received the patent No. 6,627,190 for his work.

Only the sufficiently wealthy may receive access, then. In many economically deficient portions of the world, relatively benign diseases have remained impressively lethal.

Thirty years of effort, plus several decades of awaiting the availability of a less expensive implementation. What an unfortunate circumstance.

Dupe flameproofing

[Anonymous Coward]

[Note: this is a very different project from the one mentioned by a previous Slashdot post.]

How ironic that story submitters are now feeling the need to add flameproofing like this to their submissions, in fear of the duplicate article police.

Let's hope they got this right

[CatGrep]

Article seems to indicate that they juiced this virus so it's more effective in killing cells. We can only hope that after it's been out in the environment for a while (and that's bound to happen, they can't keep everyone who gets it isolated for weeks) that it won't start to mutate and infect healthy cells too.

so they patented this, but what's to keep someone from just getting their cancer cure by shaking hands with someone who's getting the treatment?

Re:So...

[momerath2003]

Who's got an explanation for the lay on how these could elude the body's natural immune system?

Simple.

It uses reverse tachyon transcriptase to bipolarize the antibodies. Once the body is cancer-free, the doctors must simply use a modulated graviton beam to hyperstimulate the immune system, thus ridding the body of the modified cold and restoring the immune system to normal activity levels.

Good!

[Shihar]

Not to invoke the wrath of the anti-humanity moderators out there, but good! To hell with Darwinism. If humanity can do it better then nature, why shouldn't it? Ok, so we can no longer effectively evolve stronger and better humans through evolution. We can still evolve stronger and better humans through genetic manipulation. Granted, we are not able to effectively do this today, but some day within the near future we will be able to. Once that happens we will likely evolve much faster then any species on the face of this planet ever has. Hell, we might not even do it biologically, it might be that a few hundred years from now we have stripped away the organics and 'being human' has nothing to do with the parts you were built out of.

Now, the obvious response is that we are playing god or screwing with mother nature, but consider for a moment that perhaps this is natures grand design?

Biological evolution is just the latest of nature's trends towards greater complexity. Why can't intelligence be the next perfectly natural way to head towards greater complexity? We don't look down upon sexual reproduction because it is more complicated then single sex reproduction. No cries that it is unnatural when sexual reproduction, the next step in evolution, is given its shot. Why look down on intelligence when it contributes to the grand scheme of things? Why would intelligent human evolution brought about in a lab be worse?

Honestly, I think humans are just the next rung on the ladder on the way up. What happens when you get to the top? Who the hell knows. Are we the last step? Probably not. It doesn't bother me though that there is a new order in town. If anything, it is uplifting. Biological evolution likely is not the most reliable way for life to survive when sun dies.

P2P Cancer Cure

[aduzik]

You know, availability's simply not going to be a problem. My family has given me -- free of charge -- two common cold viruses already this year. It's only a matter of time before everyone catches the cancer cure cold, too!

But then we'll all get sued by the AMA, the RIAA, and SCO for copyright infringement for illegally distributing the patented cure virus to complete strangers. They'll demand royalties every time a cell undergoes mitosis!

Antibiotics Cause Cancer

[yintercept]

If you look at the historical records, you will see a marked jump in the percent of people who die of cancer after the introduction of antibiotics. Food does the same thing. In times of famine and wars (for that matter) very few people die of cancer.

does that mean the Cold kicks Cancers ass for most annoying thing to get in you?

It makes sense to fight disease with disease.

There's a whole ecosystem of single celled creatures living inside people. Some things like acidophilous are quite good for the system. IMHO, the occasional cold seems to help keep the immune system in tune.

I think it is healthier to think in terms of maintaining a good balance in the ecosystem than to try and prevent all exposure to disease. Personally, I avoid antibiotics except for extreme diseases. BTW, when people do take antibiotics, they need to take the full subscription, other wise you will turn into a fun little biology experiment where the germs resistent to the anti-biotic can work on their evolution. I read arguments by some doctors that think the government should curtail the use of antibiotics to extreme cases so that we can halt the evolution of antibiotic resistent diseases.

Re:Antibiotics Cause Cancer

[corbettw]

If you look at the historical records, you will see a marked jump in the percent of people who die of cancer after the introduction of antibiotics.

Hmm, wonder if that's because people are suddenly *not* dying of cholera, tuberculosus, or the plague?

Food does the same thing. In times of famine and wars (for that matter) very few people die of cancer.

Wow, in times of famine, people don't die from cancer? Too bad they're all busy dying of starvation, they could've lived forever!

Too bad you had to lead off with such bizarre statements, since I find myself nodding to just about everything else (including the critique of the overuse of anti-biotics, and that getting the sniffles once in awhile is a good thing).

Re:Antibiotics Cause Cancer

[yintercept]

I recall, several decades ago, there were health agencies screaming about a big rise in the number of cancer deaths. Fatalities of all the other major diseases were going down, but the percent of deaths from cancer kept rising. Some cancer researchers were making the increase in cancer related deaths sound like an epidemic. Everyone was paranoid about anything that might be carcinogenic...until someone realized that all of the percentages had to add up to 100, and that the primary cause for the increased cancer rate was longevity. When longevity was identified as a carcinogen, then the rhetoric cooled down, while opening opportunities for sick humor on /.

Personally, I think the biggest health threat the world has right now is the increasing drug resistence of many of the historical diseases that plagued the past. I think the most promising things we are discovering right now is how our bodies work as ecosystems. My hope is that doctors will stop over prescribing antibiotics and take a more holistic approach to diseases. Designer, symbiotic organisms might encourage more thought on the body as a whole system.

A large number of the different creatures living inside people have symbiotic relations with the host. I would not be surprised if they found natural viruses with a tendency to attack cancers. Genetically modifying the viruses might just be a matter of increasing natural tendencies.

Adding two and two

[kimmop]

Altough this is a good achivement it's no scientific breakthrough. If you're interested please read the description section from the patent It's quite well written and understandable.

There's few things you have to know about viruses and cancer to understand this thing:

First: The viruses (adenoviruses to be specific) work by infecting the host (human) cell and by forcing the host to replicate the viral DNA and to produce the proteins coded in the DNA. After few days of this, a lot of new viruses form inside the host cell and the cell gets broken up (lysed) relasing a lot of new viruses to infect the nearby cells.

Second: Cancer is uncontrolled replication of cells. Actually quite many genes must be deactivated (like p53) and activated (like telomerase) to produce a bad type (neoplastic) tumor. The telomerase is needed in the cancer cells because it extends the ends of the chromosomes in the cell after each replication, thus allowing a cell to replicate more.

Prior art: Some people have taken the promoter (DNA sequence that activates a gene) from human telomerase and put it in an adenovirus (that was mutated to be non-replicating) together with cell-suicide inducing gene. By infecting a cancer cell with this virus, you can kill it nicely if the cell expresses telomerase (i.e. is replicated i.e. is a cancer cell)

The problem with the prior art is that producing non-replicating viruses is difficult and expensive and you have to infect all of the cells more or less individually.

Invention: Use the telomerase promoter to drive a gene required for the DNA replication in the virus. This way the virus will kill (by lysis) the cancer cells and infect the other cells nearby but will not lyse the healthy (telomerase-deactive) cells.

Even though this is not a major scientific breakthrough I still hope this works and think it's clearly worth a patent.

I have a few words to say to people like these...

[mark-t]

Shut up about the press releases and just *DO* it already.

Once you've actually *done* something, then feel free to stand up and take your bows... they will indeed be well deserved, but these types of promises for the future do nothing to help the people who are dying of cancer right now, many of whom may not even live to see the development of such a cure.

So instead of wasting time making press releases about the "promise" of a cure for cancer, just shut your yap and *CURE* people... Your Nobel Prize in medicine awaits.

(Sorry... do I sound a tad bitter?)

Re:I concur...

[btakita]

...or the research would not have taken place until 20 years later.

The whole idea of patents is to protect the person who comes up with an idea. If Dr. William Wold wants to allow the world to use this idea, he will truly benefit humanity. If not, then it is his prerogative not to (Yes, he is allowed to make money).

He shouldn't be forced to share his design so other companies can take the idea and make cheap spinoffs. Where would the incentive to innovate and share ideas come from for those who innovate for profit? (I know, Linus Torvolds Freely gave away Linux, but not everybody has the same mentality.)

If you dont like that, come up with your own unique way to kill cancer and freely share it with everybody.

Re:hmm

[sosume]

When you are trying to fight cancer with an adenovirus, like a particularly nasty common cold, you get a mutated adenovirus that seems to copy itself only in cells that lack a functioning copy of a gene called p53 that repairs damaged or mutated DNA. If the DNA is then too smashed up to be repaired, p53 instructs the cell to self-destruct.

Since cancer occurs when DNA becomes so badly battered that it stops regulating cell growth and behavior, it is not surprising p53 has stopped working in more than half of human tumors..

Questions left unanswered

[sharkey]

have genetically engineered a common cold virus

But how many asses does it have?