Slashdot Mirror
Nanomaterials Used in Possible Cancer Cure
Moiche writes "Medical researchers at CalTech and the Children's Hospital in Los Angeles have successfully inhibited cancer growth in mice by wrapping engineered RNA in nanomaterials and introducing them into the bloodstream. Two polymers and a special coating allow the therapeutic RNA to enter the cancer cell and release the therapeutic RNA payload. The new technique has slowed or prevented the development of secondary tumors in lab mice with Ewing's sarcoma. Further testing is planned on humans, and with other cancers. The Diamond Age seems closer, day by day."
So now, nanobots not only can defeat the Borg, but they can also cure cancer. W00t!
A good friend of mine found out today that she has inflammatory breast cancer (IBC). I would like to belive that a technology like this could help her, but I don't think that she will ever get that chance.
This uses RNAi technology - that is the RNA they deploy is complementary to the RNA produced in Cancer Cells, and so they complement with the cancer RNA into a double-stranded piece of RNA - which screams virus - and the cell destroys it. Therefore stopping the growth of the cancer.
This method of using the nanomaterials to protect it and enable it to enter the cancer cells surely looks very promising!
"Real programmers don't comment their code. If it was hard to write it should be hard to understand."
Today I've booked my pet mouse, muis in for surgery to remove her third tumour. The previous surgeries have been successful, but it would be ace not to have her go through a general anaesthetic again.
(I realise this is an important development for fixing human cancers, but as a pet owner - it would be great to have these working fixes for the little ones it's been demonstrated on!)
Mice may save mankind again!
The smallest buzzword ever created by Man
Molecular biologists have been trying to engineer a safe, reliable, effecient method of drug delivery to selected cells for decades. This includes modifying viruses, poxviruses, herpes viruses, adenoviruses,retroviruses, etc.. but they all have problems. Creating the viruses isn't difficult, nor is mutation a serious problem. What is difficult is selectively targetting ONLY the cells you want, getting ALL (or most) of them with a sufficient quantity of whatever agent you are delivering. That's hard.
The big deal about this result isn't RNAi (which people have known about now for several years) but the success in hijacking the transferrin transporter to bring the RNAi in.
The other thing... WTF, its a mouse.
My family's dog died, he was a damn good dog, smart and with a lot of character, and I miss him. But he was getting old and if it wasn't kidney failure it would have been something else, soon, and I've accepted that. And there are people starving to death every day in Africa- and not to use that as an abstract rhetorical device, I've been there and seen them- shit, this nation needs to get a grip and get a fucking sense of perspective. They're just pets.
"Well established?"
I'd like to see your reference...I've never heard of that position.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
The tricky part is that each individual cancer must have a particular treatment created for it. It's not a generic cancer cure, but rather one that can be targeted against certain very specific types of cancer. They'd need to know exactly what's genetically wrong with the cell in order to cure it.
Not only that, but if the iRNA sequence not only matches the problem RNA but also a healthy one, you could potentially be interfering with normal gene function. That's why they targeted Ewing's sarcoma, a cancer that "provides a clear and unambiguous target".
Finally, this doesn't seem to actually cure the cancer, but rather puts it into submission. Think of the cancer cell's nucleus spitting out bogus RNA, only to be chopped up by iRNA that matches it. You'd need to take the treatment essentially forever. Drug companies could make billions.
Have you ever tried to changed your internal pH to be alkaline balance? I'm sure you haven't cause you would be dead. The body can only exist in a narrow range of pH to functional properly.
Great links. Basically various groups of people trying to sell something and various other groups trying to shut them down.
Not exactly "research."
--MarkusQ
Slashdot simply doesn't have many persons these days who are particularly informed on the sciences.
Although I agree with much of your post, the above statement is *patently* false -- speaking from the academic medical community, I can name several professors, postdocs, and physicians within my university that follow science.slashdot on a regular basis.
Additionally, keep in mind that plenty of people who are specialists simply don't comment because the linked article doesn't provide enough detail. As a case in point, my research centers on cancer, but I'd be cautious to comment, simply because the popular media article (from 'The Economist') doesn't provide enough hard facts & methodology details -- if it was published in Cancer or Science, one could make an informed statement, but not as is.
Just my two cents.
Have you ever tried to changed your internal pH to be alkaline balance? I'm sure you haven't cause you would be dead.
In which case it would most definitely be impossible for cancer to form.
The technique works!
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Just as a fyi, the press release for Hu et. al.'s research can be found at the American Association for Cancer Research proceedings page -- it's more technical than the Economist article linked above, but is quite informative.
Dude, do you realize that electronics 30 years ago were in their infancy? OOooh look, a transistor radio!
Nanotech will grow exponentially just like electronics (expect some Moore Law regarding nanotech to appear soon). Problem is, exponential growth rates are VERY SLOW on the beginnings.
But wait in 10 or 15 years when nanotubes manufacturing is completely understood and industrialized.
I can't believe that this comment was scored 5,Informative. It is totaly misleading. The RNA:RNA hybrid does not scream "virus". In fact it goes under the "virus radar" and does not elicit the interferone responce. A more acurate description would be that it hijacks a mechanism that is used in generation of small regulatory RNAs (micro or miRNAs) and results in cleavage of the targed. The biggest achievement of this research is the delivery system which looks very efficient and is the best alternative to virus vectors so far. As for the use of RNAi in any therapy, I have my reservations. The reason is that these RNAs can and do work as miRNAs and thus are not as selective towards their targets as people would like to think. As a result they will perturb the expression of multiple genes in addition to their target.
Sorry, but this is standard molecular biology and polymer chemistry, the way it's been done for decades. It has nothing to do with "nanotechnology".
Nanotechnology, as in the Diamond Age, refers to a new class of self-replicating molecular devices. Nanotechnology was overhyped, has delivered no scientific insights, and has been a complete failure. That is why its proponents are now going around and trying to relabel work in material science and biology, work that happens to be at the right scale, as "nanotechnology".
You make some very good points except there are a lot more science experts here than you might think. I think most of them are lurkers who don't post much. One reason has already been mentioned. Scientists don't really like to comment on things unless they have RTFA and the background and thought about it which is a bit of work even if the topic is in your field of expertise. Secondly, some of the issues brought up are really very complex and it takes a lot of effort to try to give enough background so that the comment makes sense to the non-expert. A third reason is one that you touch upon - the amount of noise - i.e. why would anyone make the effort if they are going to be shouted down?
/. is not really for science news - you can read Nature or Science for that - but for the unfiltered noise itself. This is one of the best places to get opinions of a large population of fairly intelligent non-experts on current topics of science. While there are a few zealots, I find the /. community as whole to be very receptive to science. They help identify areas where scientists need to spend more time and energy communicating ideas and countering FUD.
But, the reason to read
Feed the mouse to the starving Africans.
(oooooooh, that was sick, but strangely amusing!).
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.