Slashdot Mirror
Gene Therapy Ages Human Cancer Cells in Lab
mattr writes "Korean scientists are the first in the world to selectively age off and kill human cancer cells, by injecting a gene that suppresses telomerase, a cancer-specific enzyme that normally makes cancer cells immortal by protecting the telomere tips of their chromosomes. The telomere length modulation mechanism was found by two scientists from Yonsei University and colleagues at U. Central Florida, and is reported in the April 1 issue of Genes and Development magazine."
The perfect aging drug! Now I can look older and act younger!
my bet is that the in the end the korean guys will be forgotten and only the americans will be remembered... same thing happens on a smaller scale with the graduate students doing the research and the professor... that's how it works. it's not fair.
Investing forum
I think I'm gonna have a cigarette now.
This is incredible in theory, but what time frame are we talking about in humans once this gene is injected? Will it adversely affect human cells? I read it targets a cancer specific enzyme but am I missing anything? Could this be a cure, after the fact? (Bio-Medical newbie here).
Be True, Unbeliever
So they can selectively age cells through gene theraphy... Can we do the inverse to stop the aging of other cells?
In Korea, only cancer gets old!
But seriously, this is very interesting. When telomeres started getting press a few years back, it was really obvious that this would eventually be the key to managing cancer. (And if Alex Chiu gets his way, the key to immortality).
If cells age because child cells of a mitosified cell contain fewer telomeres, then something that prevented that telomeric loss would lead to an eternal lifetime for splitting cells.
What has interested me about this is that babies are born with a full set of telomeres. This means that the telomeric levels of the parent (mother) is not passed to the child. All other cells in a person's body are dependent on the number of telomeres present in those first few cells clumped together in the womb.
By blocking fetal tissue research, the harvesting of these precious cells is hampered. The reasons for fetal research are many, and the study of telomeres is one big area that simply can't be replicated with non-fetal stem cells.
Telomerase is not only in cancer cells, it's in a bunch of other kind of cells - generally ones long lasting. That's what gave the idea in the first place to do research along these lines. The Wikipedia isn't totally off, would be a good thing to read for correct information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomerase
The post date from donga is April 3'rd. That's the more important one I belive, though I'd like to hear more about it.
Be True, Unbeliever
The University of Central Florida doesn't get any credit because we don't have a good football team, but this is the third /. piece featuring the school in the past six months. How's for some nerd credit?
Inhibiting telomerase has a significant problem: it kills off the gametocytes, which need telomerase to reproduce constantly but still have constant length telomeres. The side effect has to be infertility, unless the researchers found a receptor or variation in cancer cells which allows selective target for the vector. I have a feeling that it is not what they did, since the cancer cells were grown in a tissue culture, and not in vivo. We'll have to wait for human studies to see where this is going.
This mechanism has been studied for a very long time, but this must be the first time that researchers have been successful in manufacturing the vectors.
Of course, there are still promising treatments such as angiogenesis inhibitors which has the benefit of not losing fertility.
I am defenseless. Use your button. Mod me down with all of your hatred.
What isn't clearly mentioned is that telomerase is *inactive* in normal human cells. We're born with our telomeres at a certain length, and they're never renewed. That's why some cancers are unique in that they reactivate this latent gene therebye making them immortal; for example, Hela cells are used in every lab across the country. They originally were taken out of some woman's breast cancer in the 50's and they're still thriving! As a matter of fact, while she's long dead, there's still several tons of her! But even if you were to turn off a reactivated telomerase gene, it is logical to believe that they would begin to age normally; ie, if the person with the cancer is in his 50's, the cancer might not die for several decades. The important thing to remember is that *every* cancer in every person is different on a molecular level. They are all unique, and that is why we'll never have a blanket cure for cancer. What we will eventually have is effective treatment for currently untreatable types, which is a different story all together.
This is exactly why the United States needs to donate more money to basic research. Of late science has seemed unimportant to the government, research funds have reduced and things aren't being done to provoke technologies. Instead of the government subsidizing all sorts of medications from the drug industries, there just needs to be more research towards more permanent alternatives and a reduction in patent powers. There are gene therapies for AIDS coming out and candidates for vaccines, but yet the US government still spends more money on sending current drugs out than actually thinking long term. This is sad when a small country like Korea has gotten ahead of the US and they certainly have in stem cell research and now potetially gene therapy. It would be great to have California's CIRM on a larger level.
(\_/)
(O.o) This is Bunny. (> <)
If telomerase makes cancer cells immortal, is someone working on a way to make, uh, non-cancer cells immortal?
1) Eat more charred foods
2) Use the cell phone handset a lot more
3) picnic under high tension wires often
4) cheap cigarettes from Canada
5) Use more liquids ending in -ene, -ide
6) Have more food colouring parties
7) Break out that Roentgen tube lying in the attic, make some cool photos.
8) Work with small fibres and dusts as often as possible.
Yep, now I can really break loose...
Hedley
Sure -- some sort of air dispersed virus that codes for telemerase would give all those lucky enough to catch it cancer in all infected cells (or at least would set the stage)
If bone marrow stem cells are also affected by this treatment, you can have problems with production of T-cells (CD4+ and CD8+) and erythrocytes (red blood cells). I wish that they would have at least done tests on other types of human cells. The journal article becomes available April 15th, so we shall see what all the fuss is about.
I am defenseless. Use your button. Mod me down with all of your hatred.
immortality is a feature of cancerous cells
:-)
It's only one feature of cancerous cells. Another important factor is de-regulation of the cell-cycle by degradation of critical proteins such as p53. If cells can somehow be treated for the other factors involved in cells becoming cancerous, it might be possible that expressing telomerase in all cells could eliminate the aging process. But doing so is extremely difficult and is beyond us. If we could, we would have figured out how to stop another mechanism of cancer progression!
I am defenseless. Use your button. Mod me down with all of your hatred.
they don't know how the gene works, they've only killed off in vitro cells, and they haven't tested it in the context of cancer cells surrounding normal cells. how can this be selective? for all we know, the mechanism could accelerate the removal of telomeres in normal cells. really, what does "selectively" mean here, besides that they selected only cancer cells to test the gene on?
afaik, telomerase breaks down telomeres, no matter what kind of cell you have. most cancer cells inhibit telomerase to allow survival, so you'd have to inhibit the telomerase inhibitor.
I want figure out how to start protecting the telomere tips of my chromosomes.
just because your a schizophrenic doesn't mean people arn't really out to get you
is that the Bush administration realizes quite well that stem research could potentially create 'cure for death' and it is not good for the program to have people who are immortal. And by the program I mean the grand plan. I better shut the hell up just about now.
You can't handle the truth.
This is great! Now we can all research beer without those sarcastic Fark headlines. We can move to Paris and start smoking. And I plan to save money by drinking Ukranian mineral water instead of Italian. Who's with me?
*#*#*#*#*#******* I love peanut butter sandwiches!
Finding it and then inserting genes or drugs to kill it is hard.
Gene therapy using viruses has failed because the body attacks the modified virus . Some people have died because of this and research was stopped.
There are some new ideas on using HIV virus which is harder for the immune system to attack.
Cancer patients are worried about loss of life, not loss of fertility. Fertility loss is manageable. First of all, loss of fertility is an acceptable trade off if it means you won't die of cancer. But if it is a concern, you simply bank some of your sperm or eggs before undergoing the procedure.
Also keep in mind that the vast majority of cancers strike later in life when, presumeably, you are less likely to want to have, or to be capable of having, children.
Actually, saccharin doesn't cause cancer in humans. A few years ago, it was found that the mechanism which caused the bladder tumors in rats does not happen in humans. Notice how they no longer print the warning on packages of sweet'n'low? Besides, they had to feed the rats TONS of it to get them to develop the tumors anyway.
afterall, we all look like the same little mouse at one stage, then we look like monkeys with tails
"They tell us that, we lost our tails, evolving up, from little snails..."
(Note to self: Don't post while drinking...)
I can just see it - carpool lanes full of 200 year old driver's - heads barely poking up above the steering wheel of her 2124 Buicks, on the way to bingo parlours, with the numbers drawn announced by actual Dick Clark(tm) clones.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
What they don't tell you about that study is that the rats were also habitual smokers, sad really...
This is cool... but according to what I learned in AP Biology, anyone who recieves this treatment will no longer be able to reproduce. I guess that's a lot better than having cancer.
This is definately a very promising concept. It's absolutely bounds ahead of previous treatment concepts, and with refinement, it may prove very effective.
Silence is golden... and duct tape is silver.
"reported in the April 1 issue of Genes and Development"
I just hope it's not some cruel April Fools joke...
Get your torrents...
But it *may* cause alzheimer's like symptoms. Interesting corlation on the number of cases of diabetics having odd symptoms BEFORE saccharin amd the number of cases AFTER the introduction of saccharin.
A concern of mine, as a member of my immediate family has Type II. Regardless, not passing out from elevated blood sugar levels (100% chance) certainly beats a chance at palsy and forgetfulness.
And of course, now we are the test subjects of a new version, sucralose! Which may or may not be any better; only time will tell. HOPEFULLY the fact that it is derived from sugar is actually a benefit; however, I've made rocket fuel out of sugar before, so I'm not all that reassured.
Their TVAX vaccine against cancer in a phase one at Duke caused the strongest human immune system against cancer that has ever been seen in a cancer vaccine. 19 out of 21 men with hormone refractory prostate cancer with mets, saw thier blood become free of cancer. For some there was a thousand fold reduction in the number of blood born cells. Dr's Vieweg and Bilboa are tweaking the vaccine for the phase 2 now recruiting at Duke, see Geron's web page and click on patient info, it gives you dukes number. No side effect were observed. It only targets cancer cells, which for the most part externally signal that they are making a lot of telomerase. May also be recruiting for primary kidney as well as hormone refractory prostate cancer with mets. Their other drug candidate, GRN163L is a oligo, that directly and strongly binds telomerase so it can't lengthen telomere tails. No toxicity was seen in the animal trials till they had exceeded 8 times the maximum theraputic dose. Cancer is screwed soon. Geron is using telomerase to promote the growth of stem cells in commercial scaled, (for treatments and trials). When you were in the womb, during the first trimeste of pregnancy, you produced telomerase like crazy, then it shuts off after the first trimester. If it turns on later in life, it can be real bad if the other mutations that cancer needs are also present. That's cancer. A cell gets in trouble, and doesn't die because of telomerase, but it isnt a bad thing, its the other mutations that, if present, make the cancer. Telomerase just provides the cancer cell with immortality and promotes cell division. Viral attacked cells, and warts, have telomerase turned on, but they don't have the other bad mutations too, if they get them, cancer happens. EGCG from green tea is a direct telomerase inhibitor too, need ten cups a day , try the extract capsules, each one like 4 cups of green tea per day. Put them in your coffee, it turns out that in the lab and in animals, green tea with caffiene is far more effective at killing cancer cells than the decaf green tea.
wow. I am glad to see some good news like this. I have a cousin dying of leukemia(sp?) who probably won't live through the weekend. She is 37 yrs old. she has 4 kids... the younger ones are 2 and 4.
At times like this it is hard not to get mad at the medical profession. On the other hand I have a great appreciation for what medicine has done for my family.
The cousin I mentioned got an extra year of life because of an experimental stem cell (no not the kind thats been in the news) transplant.
My father has had open heart surgery twice. He is 64 years old and still goes backpacking with my brother and I.
My mom, although a survivor has had cancer 3 seperate times: breast cancer in each breast and a melanoma in her eye.
It is from the latter that I gained a great respect for medical research, and it is why I smile reading a story like this article.
when she had her eye cancer there was a new experimental treatment at the UW hospital here in seattle. They cut her eye open and sewed a patch of radioactive material over the tumor. They then sewed the eye shut and sent her home for several days with a lead shield over her eye.
Then they took her back to the hospital and cut the eye open again and removed the patch. Over the course of the next year the tumor died back (we know because of the ultrasound and other tests they do on her). Now she has finally lost the last of the usefull sight in that eye. The sight-loss is due to the close proximity of the radiation treatment to the optic nerve.
The only other treatment at the time was to remove the eye completely. With the radiation treatment she got many years of good sight out of that eye she wouldn't have had.
It is funny to me that at the time that treatment seemed so high tech. now it just sounds barbaric. cutting the eye open twice... so invasive. Now this article highlights something that may, in our lifetime be the new exciting experimental cancer treatment, and our kids (if they can still afford health care) will wonder how we endured such brutal treatment (I would suspect no cancer treatment in our lifetime will be FUN anyway)
I guess my cousin's situation has me in an extra thoughtful mood tonight.
Obama is a twitter sock puppet
Sorry for my bad memmory, but I can't remember what species of bird they studied, but its chromosomes had caps on the ends, like cancer seems to, so the bird can live much longer that others of its size. They said if they could carry the same trait to humans... tada! Longer life.
This signature is part of a balanced post.
afaik, telomerase breaks down telomeres, no matter what kind of cell you have.
That's upside-down. Telomeres automatically shorten themselves with every cell division. Cells with very short telomeres die. This acts to limit cell divison, and probably exists (among other reasons) to limit runaway growth like cancer. Telomerase is not involved in this process at all, and in fact is not present in most normal cells.
Telomerase acts to lengthen telomeres so that the cells in question can keep dividing. Telomerase exists likely so that cell which do need to divide forever (like germ cells and bone marrow cells) can overcome the telomere limit imposed on the rest of the body.
afaik, telomerase breaks down telomeres, no matter what kind of cell you have.
Again, that's backwards. Most cancer cells express telomerase where the normal cell wouldn't. This lengthens the telomeres and allows cell division to continue.
Thus, inhibiting telomerase will re-impose the division limit on cancer cells, suppressing tumor growth. That's what this study claims to do.
Summary:
Telomere: passive cancer suppressor/division limiter present in every cell.
Telomerase: enzyme to allow a few special-case cells to keep dividing despite telomeres.
Cancer: often turns on telomerase in cell types where it should be dormant.
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
I think the US should spin this as bioterrorism & shuld just bomb Korea out of existence. Colin Powell can give a speech about a Cancerous cloud & scare people.
The only way to find a cure is to pay researchers and fund experiments to do so.
People need your help. Here's a link to donate in honor of a friend who's affected. The Cancer Walk at Tufts University is a major fundraiser for Cancer Research.
Hope this gets modded up.
I don't think it will matter really. It is going to be about who uses the science and how much more work is done.
America no doubt spends a lot, if not the most, on medical research. Though, that is mostly because of the cancer, AIDS, diabetes and multiple sclerosis foundations, not to mention ALS, Autism, and so forth. However we aren't getting into stem cell (as an example) research as heavy as other countries because of a few Draconian measures and a Draculean* view of science (* Dra-cul-ean: of or relating to Dracula or his harsh way of impaling)
At one time England was the power of the world. But during the Victorian age they started to lose sight of what was important. Not only did they implode and go after pop culture (Oscar Wilde) but they didn't do enough with technology. When textiles was where the main technology happened, Germany and America started using techniques which revolutionized the dye industry.
They also started the modern chemisty-industry because of this, their advances and discoveries in dye making paved the way for more advanced chemicals (think drugs, Bayer AG). England is what it is now and America and Germany later became major powers (think about the time leading up to until WWI). If we don't do more in this area, if we rest on our laurels we are done for.
Get your Unix fortune now!
Actually, as a born and bred American scientist I think that it is American culture that is destroying science in this country. Few students have the curiosity and persistence that research requires, and our instant gratification culture only makes this tendency worse. Also, there is now an active segment of society that is vocally opposed to much of science (the fundamentalists; christian, jewish, and islamic). Take this together with a general lack of performance and interest in science and mathematics relative to other populations, and you have a recipe for decreasing the role of science in American culture. I hope to hell that somebody keeps pushing the boundaries of knowledge and keeps it free and open, a long standard that America has followed and maintained. The point of science is also not to be a nationalistic endeavour, but rather a pursuit of knowledge. It's a meritocracy, and if that means that most science will be done in Asia by 2050, then good for them because they saw the opportunity, were interested, and worked for it. America did the same thing in the last century but our current theocratic leanings and lack of interest in science as a culture will be our downfall as the scientific elite. It's not too late to rescue it though, but I think it's unlikely.
The Koreans are on the wrong track and probably on a collision course with Geon Corp of California which discovered telomerase and holds an iron clad patent estate there. Geron has been turning telomerase on and off like a switch for years. First off, any male inhibiting telomerase with GRN163L can simply take sperm counts and discontinue if the get too low, or he can choose to live and beat the cancer. For TVAX, the most powerful cancer vaccine ever developed, which targets telomerase OVERPRODUCING cells, (cancer), The immune response isn't permanent, with boosters it will be very potent however. GRN163L will be a tumor debulker without the side effects of surgery, chemo, etc. By the way, Geron's human trials on GRN163L will take place at several N.Y hospitals for ,, I believe Leukemia.
Why the hell would anyone want to buy a low number user ID?
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
Seriously, go home to your own country and publish there. I am not saying this to be rude, and I know it sounds very politically incorrect.
Here is the deal. The USA has a ton of money. They try and steal as much talent from foriegn countries as they can. Two things happen because of this. First, the USA benifits from the brains it gets. It is just like 100 years ago with natural resources from third world countries. Now it is with human talent. A good example would be baseball, and how we are "farming" the dominican republic and other latin american countries. The players come here because the most money is here. But imagine, just for one second, if those players said to hell with the money, we want national pride, our own leagues, our own system. The talent in the USA would go down, and the games in the forigen countries would get much more interesting. But I digress. This is about science. Imagine if, for example, all the brainy chinese people who have come to the USA for graduate studies in the sciences stayed in their own country. I think it is reasonable to assume some of these people will be good enough to add something to the progress of, say, wepons systems. Now the USA has one more means of power, of forcing other nations to do what they otherwise would not want to do, or to not do what they would be inclined to do. For example, China has been waiting for the right moment to take back Tiwan. They have not because of the USA.
So my adivice to all the foriegners is GO HOME. The USA is not the great place you have been lead to believe. You can make just as good a life at home as here, probably better. But if you measure sucess by money, sure you will probably make some here. But if you measure sucess by happiness, then go home. The only bad thing about staying home is, sooner or later, the USA will find a reason to bomb your country. I think in the past decade we have bombed countries in over 4 continents, including europe. And it does not matter how much the rest of the world hates us, we keep doing it anyways.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
You need the telomerase in virtualy any cell that is dividing. Unless you are able to specificaly target the cancer cells you will end with no reproductive system, no immune system and no abillity to heal wounds and regenerate tissue. In case you still not get it, you will not die from cancer, you will die from infections rotting your open wounds. Oh, and forget about kids. Enjoy! On the other hand if you can target cancer cells there are a whole lot of less sophisticated therapies wich do not involve "injecting genes".
Oh, FYI -
Unlike the article states, I PROMISE, Genes and Development is not "famous" in the scientific community.
Nature, Cell, Development, those are famous journals. Genes and Development is for articles that don't quite make the famous journals.
In Korea, only old cancer cells die.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
This experiment was conducted in a petri dish.
Killing cancer cells in a petri dish is one thing, locating them, isolating them and killing them in the human body is another.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
People assume that evolution works for the better, but what if the strongest don't survive and the weak with money survive instead? Genetic strength does not matter and capitalism has already destroyed natural selection.
"Yea, Boss? I won't be in for the next few days. Yea, cancer. Yes, I know the project has to get done right away. Really, should be cleared up by friday. OK? Sorry about that, bye"
This is great! They are defeating cancer by attacking the very thing that keeps cancerous cells alive, apart from the rets of the body. This seems like the most promising path yet.
On the other hand, might this some day offer humans immortality, by using the telomere length modulation mechanism on normal cells? I will be the first to admit I am not educated in this subject, even a little, so is this way off base?
bash: rtfm: command not found
I liked that TV show... laughed my ass off :)
You are sick. Even if you believe for a second that the parent might be making it all up, just say nothing.
PowerLevel.com - A next generation marketplace for virtual items and services
...but it still tastes like crap.
the ability to make money is a survival ability, as it allows you to support a family and so on- through multiple generations if you are a rockafeller or a hilton...
Where evolution has halted for h.sap is that we medically cure/treat many conditions that would have died out but for modern medication..
postapocolyptic war, the same skillset that enables a weak business man to amass a personal fortune can also allow him to amass a food supply.. But a hemophilliac, diabetic, or woman who can only give birth by c-section due to hip placement, all are going to die from lack of 'current' levels of medical care.. - that's where natutral selection has been destroyed, medical care for chronic issues that lacking such care would die out...
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
I guess the people in my life are ahead of the curve, then. I've only personally known one person who has died of cancer, out of four who've had it.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Mod parent up, he makes a good point.
If God manifested Himself to us here He would do so in the form of a spraycan advertised on TV. -- Philip K. Dick
What was that date again? The date it was published? :)
Woefdram, l'apprenti sorcier
When they first announced the discovery of telomeres and attempts at using this discovery to make anti-aging drugs, I told my boss we should look at a way to SHORTEN telomeres as a potential treatment for cancer. Nobody at my old company seemed interested in pursuing this research. I bet they're all crying now, as these guys will get the patents, the glory and the riches.
Talk about mis-interpeting a post....
Even in your scenario, he said he'd opt for surgery BEFORE the treatment that makes him infertile. Why do you think he is going to get someone pregnant before he is cured?
If that were the case, he'd just get someone pregnant and THEN have the treatment that makes him infertile.
Talking about flying off the handle...
the average is always 100- even if the scale hasn't been revaluated, 100 iq is "average"
how do you define poor?
high birthrate is another survival mechanism, because in TRULY POOR areas, their is a higher infant mortality rate.
note that, once again, medical care has unbalanced evolution-with even our (usa) (wildly complained about as insufficient) universal access to medical care for all- high birthrates do equate with more population.
If medical care were only available in the instances of accidents, (broken legs, auto accidents, assaults) evolution would continue. (except I suppose, evolution for good luck)
medical ethics are centered entirely on the individual- when they should also consider the community as a whole.
Diabetic?
ethics for individuals say- give them insulin.
ethics for community say- Dachau, Treblinka.
ethics a little closer balanced for both say, insulin in exchange for sterilization if of breeding age.
Any chronic condition which can't permit survival without current levels of medical technology- should be withheld- if evolution is what is important.
if 98% of the population dies, and 50% of the survivors don't have access to the old medical technology, then half the population is useless.
as to the poor?- if you can't pay for your hospital bill, then medically assisted delivery is always followed by a tubal ligation.
Brutal? hell yes..
Necassary-- perhaps.. or we have stopped evolving via natural means...
we can, soon, have a gattagaesque ability to evolve, but that will only refine, and purify known traits that are considered desirable.
Very little opportunity to actually have sustainable 'sports' appear on the horizon then.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
The counter to your arguments is that we benefit more from our brain power and social constructs than we do from having stronger, fitter bodies. We, at least in the developed world, easily produce enough wealth that we can support the weak and the sick. We also live such comfortable lives that strength and fitness are barely tested. We do this despite being afflicted by diabetes, or delivering via c-section, because we can be productive as well. The cost of eliminating this portion of the population due to lost human capital is far greater than the cost of carrying them along.
You're right in saying that IQ needs renormalization every so often, but wrong in saying that it's in a downward direction. It's called the Flynn effect.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
How will they target the suppression to attack *only* the cancer cells' genes' telomeres, and not the telemoeres on the normal cells?
mark
I keep hearing people assert that telomere shortening was the only thing between an organism and immortality. Does anyone have a dissenting opinion?
I understand that transformed cells are effectivly immortal. These cells could lose a lot of genetic information and still be functional, though. Is it possible that "hayflick's limit" is just much higher for this type of cell and that there's some other method of information loss at work?
For example, isn't there some kind of information loss in the genes of somatic cells caused by transposons, viruses, etc. particularly those cells over a certain age?
Are transposons less active in stem cells, germ line cells or embryonic stem cells? Does anyone know?
And could anyone please explain why differentiated cell types have shortened telomeres while undifferentiated cells seem immune. I understand the existance of telomerase and that it's present in some cells and not in others. But in terms of utility, is deliberate senescence really ONLY a defese against cancer\unregulated cell growth and that's it? Period? Remove cancer and we'd all live as long as redwoods? I keep hearing that line over and again, but it seems odd to think that multicellular life would otherwise be immortal.
Any thoughts on whether mortality is partially related to the existance of an animal's immune system? As cells change and become exposed to virises, they become increasingly "non-self". The existance of a non-chemical immune system is one other difference between mortal humans and effectivly immortal plants.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
I don't remember the exact percentage, but when I was doing my Masters Degree on multidrug resistance in breast cancer, I remember reading about telomerase. From what I remember, mutation from a normal cell to a transformed (cancerous) cell is not just any one mutation. It's a multistep process, and not all cancerous cells overexpress the telomerase gene. There could be other ways for the telomerase enzyme to be overactive (i.e. decreased degradation of the enzyme by ubiquitinization), but I don't recall if anyone has looked at that. That being said, it's always been easy to kill tumors... you just have to use doses that are too high for patient survival. Selective targeting is where it's at. One of the researchers I used to work with was trying to put normal cells into a quiescent G-zero state so higher doses of chemotherapeutic drugs could be used without hurting the normal cells (i.e. most cancer treatments don't hurt cells that aren't actively dividing) Cool stuff. I'm hoping for cures for most major ailments before I hit 65. Too bad so many bright people overlook careers in science these days, simply due to the financial reimbursement a career in science will get you. This includes myself. I chose to go to medical school instead of getting a PhD. Yes, I'm a sellout.
The enzyme telomerase is active in other cell types in the body (ie. testis) and is turned on occasionally in other cells (ie.hepatocytes). Telomerase inhibitors have been used to do just this in the past and I believe the company Geron has a boat load of patents in this space. All that is new with this work, which is very nice, is that the researchers used endogenous methods to shut down the telomerase activity. Small molecules inhibitors have already shown this
This sounds like the result of an out-of-control university public relations department. The idea of targeting telomerase for cancer therapy is not at all new. Drug companies are already developing small-molecule telomerase inhibitors as cancer chemotherapeutic agents.
What the investigators have found is a novel indirect method of reducing telomerase by stimulating its degradation. But introducing genes for therapeutic purposes is difficult. It is hard to get genes taken up by all of the tumor cells, especially when there would be a selective pressure favoring cells that are resistant to transfection.
So the work is an advance in understanding how telomerase is regulated in cells, but not any sort of cancer therapy breakthrough.
It's called "PAYING YOUR DUES."
Very rarely does a grad student enter a program and have a revolutionary idea. For the most part, they do the grunt work following along research paths set forth by the project leader, a.k.a., the doctor or professor in charge.
So quit your bitching.
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
But sharks do get cancer
And if, supposing dharks didn't get cancer, what would cartilage have to do with it?
And, since you're talking about homeopaths, why would pills that don't contain any cartilage, but are supposed to somehow remember that there was once some cartilage in the mixing vat help?
"people there absolutely never get cancer. "
-->Perhaps because they also don't have the other carcinogens there? Like smoking, high levels of red meat, electricity... all that stuff.
The Nazis also discouraged basic research into nuclear physics, which they considered, for some reason, a "Jewish" science. When they finally launched a nuclear bomb program (1940 or 41, I think), they realized that it would take them several years just to catch up to the Americans, and that by the time they had a working weapon, the war would probably be over.
It's tough to get any work done around here.
'Nuff said.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
Additionally Alfred Bester alluded to this in The Computer Connection (1975!) where he referred to the fact that the immortals in his story were living just short of runaway cancer...sort of the theory "the cure for cancer is old age."
Interesting how life imitates art.
-----------------------
To understand recursion, one must first understand recursion.
Here's a 4 year old paper about a compound that doesn't only work in cell culture but also in animals. Sorry but who's first?
A highly selective telomerase inhibitor limiting human cancer cell proliferation
As an aside, would you rather take a pill or inefficient, potentially mutagenic gene therapy?
I know what I'd choose...
What's your problem? Why do you think we're overpopulated?
Want to see every step I took to start my company? http://www.rowdylabs.com/blogs/pitchtothegods
pfft. takes more than some AC thinking I am a karma whore to phase me. Its all true... don't care who believes me.
Obama is a twitter sock puppet
where did I say we are overpopulated?
that was never mentioned by me.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
uhuh, and,
re-read what I wrote.
1st part. I was talking about a situation in which the status quo is no longer.
yse, CURRENTLY, we can support all these problems.
let's say, 40% of the population cannot survive or reproduce without current medical technologies.
(40% completely pulled outta my ass)
Now, have a nuclear war, yellowstone erupts, sars, that leaves a community of 300 total people alive in one small town, in Montana USa, or treblinski, (made up) Russia
now, of that 300, some will be too old to reproduce.. in montana I'd guess better than half... so that leaves 150 folks of breeding age to repopulate the planet. 40 percent of them, (60) will not survive without the medical technology necassary to keep them alive or childbearing..
so- from 300 survivors, you get 90 breeders.
by denying reproductive capability to those who can't survive without access to self-supported medical care, you get instead 150 breeders.
2nd half- your statement we benefit more from our brain power and social constructs than we do from having stronger, fitter bodies. how many people are employed taking care of those who are weak and sick? Nurses, orderlies, families taking care of those who can't fend for themselves.... how many people does it really take to care for the children of a downes syndrome couple? how much MORE benefit could we derive from those medical workers doing something else with their technical skills?
How many lives are spent, how many dollars are spent, enabling the care of such? how better might those resources be used?
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
oh, sorry, I didn't realize you were advocating eugenics until just now.
Want to see every step I took to start my company? http://www.rowdylabs.com/blogs/pitchtothegods
Haha! That's right, our school is now famous for more than just Dante Culpepper.! W00T!
Most people who have money were born with money. Very few people who have money have some genetic gift for making money, this is actually a very rare trait that 99% of the population does not have. Warren Buffet, Donald Trump and people like this have the gift, but Bill Gates was born wealthy and grew up to be worlds richest man.
The simple fact is, this new form of capital based evolution does not apply to people who inherit wealth, and since most people who are rich inherited it, this means we are rewarding the weak for what their parents did, once again ruining natural selection.
What you say about the sick, lets see, physical health has nothing to do with genes. Breaking your hip, becoming diabetic, these things have more to do with the ridiculous western diet and not consuming enough calcium to protect your bones. Medical care has no influence on natural selection because society is currently set up to make everyone sick, so we all are going to die of either cancer, heart disease, etc. Natural selection was when we all had our own special diets and still died, now we all are eating deadly foods and we all are dying because of it, so the only natural selection here is selecting the way you want to die.
I think you are 100% wrong, the survival abilities and the ability to make money are related but they arent the same. Someone can have survival abilities, they could be a genius, but they might be born so poor that they arent even given the chance to become a stock broker. You cannot play the market without having money to sit at the table.
Diabetics, at least type 2s, arent born with a genetic disorder or a disease, they are given diabetes by food companies putting high fructose corn syrup and other stuff in the food.
Cancer, once again most people arent born with it, but consume the wrong products, work in the wrong environment, and you might get cancer.
No one is immune to toxic chemicals, you might not get diabetes but you'll still have a heart attack. You may not get cancer but you'll get something, everyone gets sick when they get old and its not because of genes, its because of the way we treat the environment, the low quality food we consume, etc.
Ultimately, evolution in this way wont really matter because only intellectual evolution matters. Generating a bunch of dumb atheletes or a bunch of models won't help the world survive or the species survive, generating a bunch of Einstiens will. We arent really using capitalism to reward genius, instead we are using capitalism to reward greed, the result is the greediest will rise to the top and they may not always be the smartest or strongest, just the richest and greediest. This is fine if our species only exists to collect money, but if we plan to go into space and expand our species for thousands of years into the future, our ability to make money wont matter when it comes to science, education, knowledge, etc.
When you sell products which are known to cause diabetes, you cannot blame the diabetics, a lot of them are children who are obese and sick because McDonalds marketed to kids, or because breakfast cereals which are unhealthy are marketed to kids. Do you want to start blaming the kids for not reading the ingredients in the food you gave them?
We arent going to survive very long if we blame the victim for what corporations have done. This is like blaming the tabacco smokers for killing themselves, sure if they started smoking as an adult, but most start smoking as teenagers. Once again if you sell toxins to teenages and kids, when they become adults and have health problems whos fault is it?
Now we have genetically modified foods, if we sell these to kids and our kids grow into mutants whos fault is it? Finally why do we want to eliminate our own species? There is no logic in this. If there are aliens in space I hope someday we have a space war just so we can stop focusing on each other. How are we going to populate mars if we never make it off earth? Why is it bad to have a big population? Someone has to populate the moon, mars, and expand into space and trying to use capitalism to guide evolution will get people into space, but it won't be any of us because we arent as rich as Bill Gates and canont afford our own private trip to mars.
So you are telling me, Steven Hawking should be allowed to die because hes sick? He is a genius of a scientist who is physically disabled, what is your point?
People should never be allowed to die, people as they grow older also gain more knowledge, more intelligence, and with this they become more valueable to society. Why should we train a bunch of new people to get advanced degrees when we can keep people who have degrees but who are in need of medical care working? Why waste time retraining minds when you can train them once and then make those minds last as long as you can?
It is good to know that there will be a day when my cancer will die of old age - even if I am not around to see it.
I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
... You mean, just like saying they have no cancer?