Slashdot Mirror
First Whole Cancer Genome Sequenced
dooling writes "A paper detailing the sequencing of the first human cancer genome will be published in the 6 November 2008 issue of Nature. This is not only the first cancer genome published, it is the first female genome as well. You can read the paper's abstract, DNA sequencing of a cytogenetically normal acute myeloid leukaemia genome, or the story in Science News. This issue of Nature also has articles on the sequencing of the first African and Asian genomes. The sequencing in all three articles was done using the Illumina Genome Analyzer, one of the massively parallel, next-generation genome sequencing platforms."
Remember northern blots? Remember how real time PCR and microarrays blew them out of the water? Next gen sequencers take those, divide them by zero in a black hole and kick Chuck Norris' ass 9 ways from Sunday.
This pains me to say - a couple of friends of the family have been diagnosed with cancer- one very dear to me and with limited time to live, the other a very decent man and doesn't know his chances yet.
I can't help but think that cancer is acting as a brake on the population explosion. If we cured cancer tomorrow these people who are dear to me wouldn't suffer, but we'd be even less sustainable and eventually we'd see wide spread poverty and famine. So the question becomes: If we do gather the knowledge we need to cure various forms of cancer so that those dear to us don't suffer, what are we going to do to balance things out and prevent the population from skyrocketing?
I don't have easy answers. I certainly don't like watching friends and family die, and would like to see a proper cure instead of various poisons in the form of radiation and drugs that take their toll on the person as much as the disease.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
There's always a "but." They sequenced an FAB classification M1 AML. That's nice, but these things tend to have a heterogenous genetic makeup. It'd be nice if they sequenced more of those things and compared them as well.
If they manage to cure cancer, it will likely be too expensive for the average person, and any insurance you can afford won't cover it. Don't think of it a capitalism gone wrong, think of it as medical extortion. That way, we won't have to worry about keeping the elite alive, and the poor can die of "natural causes" just like they always have.
Sorry, that was a poor attempt at humor. Serously, despite wide and inexpensive availability of contraception, individual humans have very little control or foresight when it comes to controlling the number of offspring they have. We have advanced to the point (well beyond the point, actually) where having a large family is necessary or desirable. If each couple had only one child, on average, we could fix a lot of problems in just a few generations. It would generate other problems, but on balance it would provide a much more sustainable population.
As for the lack of suffering at life's end...well, no matter how good our medical care gets, we will still die. And for most of us that will mean some sort of painful end as one critical part of us fails before the others do. With a few exceptions, that's going to mean suffering at the end of life. *shrug*
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Really?
Is that significant?
If so, why? If not, why hadn't it been done before? (Other than the whole "zomg this job is taking forever" thing)
Yikes.
Quit screwing around on slashdot and get back to work, Dooling. :)
My mother died of cancer so this is a topic close to home.
I don't know what FSM you believe in but who or what would exactly put cancer into play to act as a population limiter?
I don't see how a balance can be created by randomly affecting people with cancer (or any other affliction).
Cancer may act as a brake, but only in a "people die when they get old" way.
I call shenanigans, since at least 7% of the genome is repetitive elements, centromeres, cnvs etc. etc. Also, remember that they use a reference genome, which itself is not complete. What happens if the cancer/person has a sequence not found in the reference genome. I know, it is not reported. It is more informative to say 90% of the tumor was sequenced. Probably the last 10% was the important part anyways (cnvs and the number of repeats are very important), so this is just anther "first post" in Science and Nature. Can they start publishing proper papers rather than "hot" papers?
The Science News article says that they sequenced both a cancer cell and a non-cancer cell from this woman. So we can specifically say "these are the bases that are different" and from there (with luck) to "this is the mutation that happened".
That should prove quite illuminating.
All the lab has to do now is patent the gene sequence and then sue mother nature for everything she's worth every time someone expresses this gene!
There's your above the fold headline: Lawyers cure cancer!
Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
Ok, I'm going to lose major Karma for this.... but what the hell..
This is not only the first cancer genome published, it is the first female genome as well.
Wait, wait, wait.... you mean they're different?
You can view mutations for various cancers here : Cancer Genome Workbench or Catologue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer.
I'm pretty sleepy but at first glance I thought the first whole Cancer Gnome sounded pretty scary!
Males and Females share 23 chromosomes: 2 copies of 1-22 and 1 copy of X. Males have a Y instead of the second X.
The only difference in the GENOME is the Y (the two copies for 1-22 are different, except for maybe inbred lab mice).
The studies you cite do NOT point out different genomes.
There is, no doubt, differential gene expression between average, healthy males and females. That does not mean their genomes are different (except for the Y chromsome).
Cis-regulatory regions are emerging as important components of gene regulation.
They need to look at what was once called "junk DNA", too.
Ice wear.
So, is she hot?
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Think of the cancer cells, they have a right to live too!
Cancers usually horrible - painful, disfiguring, debilitating. There are more peaceful ways to die in old age. besides eliminating cancer does not add too many years to the average lifespan - about six. Antibiotics and hygene nearly doubled lifespan.
The first genome cost $3 billion. This one did two genomes for $500K apiece. Future costs are expected to drop another thousand in a decade. They may need to do a thousand of these kind of sequencings to capture the range of the major cancers.
Plus once you know the range of genomic differences for each kind of cancer, you could develop a set of cheaper makers. Each cancer is expected to consist of a couple dozen mutations, maybe ten or so for each specific instance.
When a "pretty smart chap" fails to reproduce,
that just leaves room for the not-so-smart.
It's time we accept that evolution is real, and
it is affecting humanity. If dumb people are the
ones who reproduce, then that is where the
selection pressure is taking us.
I happen to be horrified that humans are going
to lose their intelligence. Let's resist it as
best we can. If you are above average at all,
please have as many kids as you possibly can.