Slashdot Mirror


A Virus that Attacks Brain Cancer

Ponca City, We Love You writes "In the past few years, scientists have looked to viruses as potential allies in fighting cancer. Now researchers at Yale University have found a virus in the same family as rabies that effectively kills an aggressive form of human brain cancer in mice. Using time-lapse laser imaging, the team watched vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) rapidly home in on brain tumors, selectively killing cancerous cells in its path, while leaving healthy tissue intact. 'A metastasizing tumor is fairly mobile, and a surgeon's knife can't get out all of the cells,' says Anthony Van den Pol, lead researcher and professor of neurosurgery and neurobiology at Yale. 'A virus might be able to do that, because as a virus kills a tumor cell, it could also replicate, and you could end up with a therapy that's self-amplifying.' It's not yet clear why VSV is such an effective tumor killer, although Van den Pol has several theories. One possible explanation may involve a tumor's weak vascular system. Vessels that supply blood to tumors tend to be leaky, allowing a virus traveling through the bloodstream to cross an otherwise impermeable barrier into the brain, directly into a tumor."

41 of 131 comments (clear)

  1. is this an "I am Legend" promo? by peter303 · · Score: 3, Funny

    The premise of several of the zombie movies is a brain virus that gets out of control. "I am Legnd", "28 days"

    1. Re:is this an "I am Legend" promo? by KublaiKhan · · Score: 5, Informative

      IIRC, in 28 Days, the virus involved was being developed as a bioweapon rather than as a cancer cure.

      I don't think that this will lead to a zombie plague, though--I think it's more likely if something goes wrong that the patient would die of encephalitis or something similarly unpleasant.

      A 'zombie-like' state would require the virus to target fairly specific areas of the brain--temporal lobes and the like, if I'm remembering my brain geography correctly. Though, of course, this depends on whether you want to produce the 'traditional' shambling-servant type, or the hip new raging maniac type.

      Still, if it's a choice between possible death and even more possible death, or between possible zombification and likely death, I'd take the risk. Brain tumors can really mess you up, y'know?

      --
      In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
      A stately pleasure dome decree
    2. Re:is this an "I am Legend" promo? by KublaiKhan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, to be fair, Edward Jenner had no sweet clue why cowpox would protect someone from smallpox, but once he figured out how to protect people, it was in his best interests to protect as many people as possible rather than waiting for the full 'why' before doing something.

      --
      In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
      A stately pleasure dome decree
    3. Re:is this an "I am Legend" promo? by Wandering+Wombat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You recall wrong. It was being developed as a cure for violent, psychopathic behavior. It, uh.... it didn't work.

      --
      I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
    4. Re:is this an "I am Legend" promo? by mapsjanhere · · Score: 4, Funny

      That why I prefer G-23 Paxilon Hydrochlorate for all my pacification needs. Better living with chemistry!

      --
      I'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
    5. Re:is this an "I am Legend" promo? by TheMadcapZ · · Score: 5, Funny

      I second that. At least with this method if you do become a raging zombie, with the click of a button ,those little buggers can play a round of Dig-Dug in your head thus sparing humanity the ensuing brain eating rampage.

    6. Re:is this an "I am Legend" promo? by tor528 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Even if you only had a few months left to live?

      --
      If I think something is funny, I will probably mod it +1 Insightful. "It's funny because it's true."
    7. Re:is this an "I am Legend" promo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      rather than waiting for the full 'why' before doing something. Right!
      Because we can use the virus to kill the cancer, then bacteria to kill the virus, then worms to eat the bacteria, birds to eat the worms, cats to eat the birds, dogs to eat the cats, and gorillas to kill the dogs. Don't worry, the gorillas won't be a problem because they'll eventually freeze* to death.

      *Note: does not apply to tropical climates
    8. Re:is this an "I am Legend" promo? by Wandering+Wombat · · Score: 2, Funny

      Cutting yourself and eating people's skin? Where does that get fun?

      --
      I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
    9. Re:is this an "I am Legend" promo? by Duncan+Blackthorne · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, that 0.1% that it backfires on, that's not enough people to really care about now is it? A few nice bribes to the FDA and no problems, right?

    10. Re:is this an "I am Legend" promo? by KublaiKhan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If the hospital isn't already quarantining you for your -own- good due to your suppressed immune system, then there'll be little danger of that, because you'll die of an opportunistic infection rather quickly.

      You use about the same procedures for someone who has a severely infectious disease as one who has a suppressed immune system.

      --
      In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
      A stately pleasure dome decree
    11. Re:is this an "I am Legend" promo? by Guppy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, that 0.1% that it backfires on, that's not enough people to really care about now is it? A few nice bribes to the FDA and no problems, right? The medical community would be absolutely thrilled at a "0.1%" rate. Remember to compare with the mortality and quality-of-life of untreated and conventionally treated brain tumors.

      Oh, and FDA inspectors (at least the rank-and-file that I've encountered) are known for being very scrupulous -- they follow an strict inspection procedure that is openly published for examination, and are not allowed to accept even a cheap lunch.
    12. Re:is this an "I am Legend" promo? by EMeta · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, most characters were zombies in that one too.

    13. Re:is this an "I am Legend" promo? by xSauronx · · Score: 2, Funny

      Indeed. Every good cook knows that skin isn't worth eating if it isn't crispy!

      --
      By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
    14. Re:is this an "I am Legend" promo? by Metasquares · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Particularly GBM, which seems to be the tumor they tested this on. The survival rates for that type are currently abysmal, and anything that raises them is welcome, .1% having side effects or not.

  2. Good news and bad news by sm62704 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Doctor: I have good news and bad news. The good news is, your cancer is under remission.

    Patient: And the bad news?

    Doctor: We gave you rabies.

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    1. Re:Good news and bad news by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Funny

      Rabies? Well, that is alright. My husband might be upset if it was babies. But rabies should be fine.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  3. Cure (potentially) worse than the disease? by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful
    From the summary:

    'A virus might be able to do that, because as a virus kills a tumor cell, it could also replicate, and you could end up with a therapy that's self-amplifying.'


    Yes...and it may also mutate, and you'd wind up with a virus that has developed a taste for healthy brain cells. Granted, the chances are slight, but they're not nonexistent. Don't get me wrong...as the husband of a brain cancer victim, I find this development very exciting. I just have a habit of looking on the darker side of things.
    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:Cure (potentially) worse than the disease? by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They found this version of the virus by letting it mutate. Best of breed, you might say. But they were doing the selecting, not nature, so I too wonder what would happen to it in vivo.

    2. Re:Cure (potentially) worse than the disease? by cmorriss · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As they stated in the article, they had to immunosupress the mice so that they wouldn't reject the human brain tumor that was put in their brain. This suppression allowed the virus to make its way to the cancer cells without being attacked and killed.

      To do this in a normal human being, the virus would have to be engineered in such a way that the immune system somehow let's it go.

      Now we have a virus that is engineered to avoid a human immune response. Throw in a dose of your mutation where it attacks human brain cells and we could have a SERIOUS problem on our hands. Scary.

      --
      10 minutes working on a sig. What a waste.
    3. Re:Cure (potentially) worse than the disease? by RallyNick · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So you think 5% chance of getting rabbies and dying is worse than 50% chance of dying from brain cancer?

    4. Re:Cure (potentially) worse than the disease? by RallyNick · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or you could temporarily immunosupress the cancer patient?

    5. Re:Cure (potentially) worse than the disease? by KublaiKhan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not quite.

      Chemotherapy already suppresses normal immune response. Combine chemo and this, and you may have an effective treatment regimen for difficult tumors...

      --
      In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
      A stately pleasure dome decree
    6. Re:Cure (potentially) worse than the disease? by backslashdot · · Score: 4, Informative

      Also worthy of pointing out is that the brain isn't patrolled by the immune system. Still, stage IV cancer will kill a person too. Furthermore, this virus .. VSVrp30a isn't a human attacking virus. I believe it would require too high a number of specific mutations in its genome to acquire the ability to target non cancerous cells (though I have no idea what the specific SNP's are). Now before someone runs around claiming this is in the rabies virus family... the amount of mutations required to get there is astronomical (unless there somehow exist conditions for directed evolution).

      Viruses that attack tumors (oncolytic viruses), have been studied for years and there is a whole list of them .. check out wikipedia.

      Outside the brain most viruses can be handled effectively by the immune system, especially if primed against it (thats why small pox, rabies etc. vaccines exist). Yes, yes, I know HIV and HCV aren't. They're exceptions.

    7. Re:Cure (potentially) worse than the disease? by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Meh. As long as it doesn't become airborne it's no big deal with this type of brain cancer. My mother had it, so I know a decent amount about it.

      As it stands, if you get a glioblastoma, you're dead. It may take a year, but more likely you have a lot less, and it won't be quality time either, it will be a quick trip down the road toward being a non-responsive vegetable.

      So if the cure kills you, no big deal. Your chances are pretty non-existent either way. Most cancer "cures" are really just a test to see if your normal healthy cells are able to take more punishment than the cancer cells. With a GBF, you're just prolonging the process.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    8. Re:Cure (potentially) worse than the disease? by getling · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree completely - my father had the same and we were lucky that it in fact WAS the treatment that killed him after three years living with it. Yes that's right, he lasted three years - for those that know about glioblastoma that is an eternity. They pumped him full of steroids, gamma knife, radiation and oral chemo (newer drug, I forget the name) and eventually the body just shut down largely due to the steroids.

      So yes, this is great news.

      However, haven't we heard this before working on the same tumor, only with a modified cold/flu virus? I seem to remember very similar research a few years back touting the same success but what has happened with that lately?

      --
      "Life is tough but we're tougher. You only get what you give, so give all that you've got." --Tony LaRussa
  4. beat me too it by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

    i was going to say a better title for this story would be "when genuine scientific research imitates disposable scifi movie dialogue"

    and add one more movie to your list : i saw that bad 2004 "doom" movie starring the rock last night on tnt, and i was having flashbacks to the movie's dialogue with this story

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:beat me too it by flyingsquid · · Score: 5, Funny
      Instead of funding this risky research into brain altering viruses, the government should restore funding for *my* experimental research into a cure for brain cancer!

      You see, I, the great Doctor Alexander von Hubris, have found a means by which to re-animate dead cells! But those foolish, short-sighted politicians cut my funding! My colleagues called my research "irresponsible" and "dangerous". And the ethics review panel called my experiments "troubling" and "unnecessarily painful". The fools! They laughed, they all laughed!

      But now, I can cure all diseases, because I have now found a way to bring dead tissue back to life! Yes, certain... shall we say, sacrifices... had to be made, but it was all in the name of science! And now, now I have found that which mankind has always dreamed of: a path to immortality. And nothing, I tell you, nothing can possibly go wrong! Tonight, I will test my technique on myself, and then you will see, you will all see!

  5. That's pretty cool, and I hope it's life saving. by explosivejared · · Score: 2, Funny

    However, as long as we are on the topic of symbiotic relationships, I've always felt that training domesticated zombies to home in on cancer cells as a delicacy would be pretty effective. Remissions wouldn't be a problem, cause zombies have pretty big appetites.

    On a tangent, it upsets me when people talk about how the government shortchanges the field of stem cells, when practically nobody is talking about zombie-centric methods of treatment. I swear, you have all these good ideas and can back them up with sound science, and it is as if no one is listening.

    Oh well, maybe one day we can grow up in a world where somebody can truthfully say, "... if it wasn't for the walking dead, I wouldn't be here!"

    --
    I got a catholic block.
  6. Virus - Tumor - Immune System by __aaptsy9143 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "In more-realistic models, the host may have a response to the virus that limits the effect."
    Kinda like biological paper-rock-scissors.
  7. Human cells in mice? by Cedric+Tsui · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm a little surprised that they injected malignant human cells into mice. These viruses do have a different effect on human cells and mouse cells don't they?

    If this does end up working, the procedure would have a substantial problem. It would need to be performed on an immuno-suppressed people or else the virus is 'stamped out' before it has a chance to mount an effective attack on the cancer.

    1. Re:Human cells in mice? by mapsjanhere · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the main part here is that the virus can penetrate the blood - brain barrier. The reason we don't die all from encephalitis during every cold is that the brain is very well screened against infectious agents. So it doesn't really matter what virus we're using for this, it's the fact that the virus can selectively penetrate into tumor tissue that's the importance of the discovery.

      --
      I'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
    2. Re:Human cells in mice? by eln · · Score: 2, Funny

      It has an even more serious problem than that: Sure, it's effective against human brain cancer in mice, but unfortunately it's only effective against mouse brain cancer in humans. So, not very useful I'm afraid.

    3. Re:Human cells in mice? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Chemotherapy and radiation treatment tend to do a pretty good job of immunosuppression anyway. If you could develop a treatment with a virus, requiring that the patient be immunosuppressed wouldn't be such a big hurdle.

      The virus might attack the primary tumor in mice as a result of its having been surgically disrupted during transplantation. That doesn't affect metastases though. Also, the virus might attack normal human cells while leaving normal mouse cells alone, but someone else pointed out that it doesn't normally infect people.

      All in all, quite interesting. You're right though, you can't say for sure until you try it in a real person.

  8. Re:Yet another cancer treatment... by robertjw · · Score: 2, Insightful

    One good thing about Brain Cancer, at least from an economic perspective, is that it can be very hard to treat. You can't just remove someone's brain the way you can a breast. I actually new a guy that died from inoperable brain cancer, nothing they could do but make him comfortable.

    It *is* profitable to cure someone who has a cancer you can't treat.

  9. 780 days too late... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Interesting
    My wife died of the same type tumor tested in TFA, a Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM), just over two years ago - only seven weeks weeks after diagnosis.

    I believe that 6,000 to 12,000 people are diagnosed with this every year and the death rate for GBM is 100% with an average LE of only 4 - 18 months with successful treatment. All joking aside, anything that can help is welcome.

    This is not the first virus found that can kill cancer. The "Reovirus" (commonly found in human respiratory and enteric tracts) also seems to work pretty well. See the following: Curing Cancer? Patrick Lee's Path to the Reovirus Treatment and Reovirus to target cancer

    "We injected the tumours directly with the virus," he said. "We were able to see tumour regression within three to four weeks. The regression appears to be complete and the mice are still living after five to six months.
    The tumour tissue seems to have been completely eliminated. The next step is tests in human patients.
    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  10. then I say let's make it profitable! by rev_sanchez · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hunting humans is generally frowned upon in modern society but if we loaded dart guns with anti-tumor brain virus and let hunters track cancer victims through a jungle or something then the patient and hunter could go dutch on the treatment. The patient's give them a good hunt and the hunter bags their prey. The incentive for the patient is that they don't have to pay for any of the treatment if they evade the hunter for 3 days.

    In the end the hunter gets a happy picture of a bald person with a dart in their ass as a trophy and the patient gets their expensive treatment. We could handle vaccinations for poor 3rd world kids the same way. Next time Angela Jolie goes to bumbuck nowhere I say we hand her a rifle with MMR shots.

    --
    If you didn't come to party don't bother knocking on my door. Prince '1999'
  11. other cancer-killing virii by utopia27 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Several companies are currently working on cancer-killing viruses. The most broadly used technique involves tailoring an existing virus (one that already dwells in the body) to be able to replicate only in cells with cancer-specific genetic defects. This is fairly straightforward because of the known set of changes that enable a cell to become cancerous. One typical target is the cell's self-destruct circuitry - if the self-destruct circuitry in the cell is enabled, the virus activates it, the cell self-destructs, and no further virii are produced. If the self-destruct circuitry is disabled (as in cancer cells) then the virus replicates, destroying the cell in the process, and millions of additional cancer-killing virii are released into the environment.

    One of the exciting prospects is systemic treatment, in which cancer-killing virii are released throughout the bloodstream. The cancer-killing virii will 'run into' cancerous cells - even metastatic ones, and destroy them. This is currently in clinical trial with Oncolytics.

    For further reading:
    http://www.oncolyticsbiotech.com/tech.html
    http://www.medigene.de/englisch/ProjektHSV.php

    DISCLOSURE: I am invested in both of these companies.

  12. Re:Yet another cancer treatment... by bcwright · · Score: 2, Informative

    I hate to sound jaded, but it *is* more profitable to treat a disease than cure it.

    By and large this is just simply not true, though it gets repeated so much that it becomes "common knowledge" much like the old wives' tale that you'll get pneumonia by going out in the cold (it may make an existing infection worse, but unless you're exposed to the disease itself you won't get it). In most cases, you can charge quite a bit for a real cure, and besides that the insurance companies will refuse to pay for a more expensive long-term treatment if they know that a real cure exists.

    There are exceptions of course, particularly in cases where the expense of finding a cure is very high and the disease is uncommon, so that it's not possible for a cure to make much money unless you're able to charge an astronomical amount for it. There are quite a few of these "orphan" diseases which don't get much attention because there just aren't very many people who suffer from them. Naturally both investors and investigators tend to focus on diseases that affect more than a handful of people - which brain cancer certainly does; I lost my wife to a brain tumor, and I've known a number of other people of all ages who have had them, many of whom died from them, including small children.

    One thing that you have to keep in mind is that true "cures" are often very difficult to achieve, especially for tough diseases like cancer. If it were that easy, there are thousands of researchers who would leap at the chance to get their names immortalized in the history of science (not to mention any financial rewards they might obtain).

    Sorry, I just don't think that this oft-repeated conspiracy theory will stand up to serious analysis.

  13. Evolutionarily speaking by Mmm_pickles · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's in the virus's best interest that the host survive. Therefore, a virus that heals the host rather than harming, is more likely to live and infect more hosts.

    This development makes me wonder whether we already have other natural, benign viruses helping us out.

    1. Re:Evolutionarily speaking by not-enough-info · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's in the virus's best interest that the host survive until transmission to a new host. There. Fixed that for you. Leaving the host alive means it has time to adapt and develop antibodies. Dead hosts don't create antibodies, nor do they produce offspring who are born with said antibodies pre-infection.
      --
      ---k--
      </stupid>