Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

First Whole Cancer Genome Sequenced

Posted by timothy on from the gee-gnome-sounds-like-a-good-open-source-project dept.

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."

6 of 115 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Next gen sequencers are fucking awesome by Corpuscavernosa · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Just wait until nanopore sequencing really takes off. Now that shit is awesome.

    --
    We figured out a long time ago that it's easier to elect seven judges than to elect 132 legislators.
  2. Population and cancer by syousef · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Population and cancer by MikShapi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Have a read through the mprize and SENS pages, projects geared at tackling not only cancer but ageing in general.

      Aubrey De Grey addressed this question a while back - what if people stopped dying from aging altogether? Will population explode? Will we immediately cause a bigger problem than we've solved?

      Following his reasoning (plus real-world numbers) the answer is no. Personally, I agree with him.

      Even in the most extreme of cases, were everyone to just stop dying of age-related causes altogether (including cancer, heart-disease etc) unless a truck hits them, population would not explode overnight. It would take a long time (read: hundreds of years) to become anywhere as apocalyptic as some would have you believe, far more than enough time for us to adapt and apply solutions to (humans have proven an uncanny ability to adapt social structures to evolving environments over the past centuries, having brains is a dang good thing at times) as well as be in turn mitigated by the very same fact that caused it, much like people going from making 15 kids to having three after realizing that all three (rather than one in five) will survive to adulthood if only they washed their hands.
      That's to say our current population growth estimates take the existing rate as a given (200 years ago, 15 kids per family per generation was a given), but this very change is likely to change, and put predictions using these numbers far off the mark.

      If people will have extended (reproduction-capable) lifetimes, the rate at which they procreate may quite possibly go down as less pressure exists to adhere to the ticking biological clock (aka "we'll have kids later"), much like many people are already preferring to do so towards their 30's rather when they're 16.

      And we'd be replacing a BIG problem (causing a LOT of suffering) with a smaller one that can be tackled by education, regulation and generally more humane means than frality and losing one's mental capacity, life or loved ones.

      Cancer is NOT a legitimate over-population solution. Neither are genocide, war, smallpox, AIDS or even old age. Much like amputation is not a solution for a muscle cramp.

      The idea of promoting it as such is ludicrous.

      They should all be cured.
      Overpopulation will be addressed in due time, using far better means that we ALREADY HAVE at our disposal.

      Last, I heartily encourage you to read this for some perspective on the matter.

      --
      -
  3. First Female Genome Sequenced by sexconker · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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)

  4. Two genomes from the same person by jfengel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  5. Re:That's nice but... by samgeribo · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I'm also concerned that these might be mutations in the hematopoietic stem cell that don't "drive" the disease. The lengthy points at the end debunking this possibility aren't convincing to me. Here are the 1st two (FTA):

    1) "genetic instability does not seem to be a general feature of AML genomes."

    Are they on crack? Perhaps I don't fully understand the context of this statement; genetic instability and evolution are seen in most cases of AML.

    2) "Alternatively, all may have occurred simultaneously in the same leukaemia-initiating cell, but only a subset of the mutations (or an as-yet undetected mutation) is truly important for pathogenesis (that is, disease 'drivers' versus passengers). Although we suggest that the latter hypothesis is very unlikely on the basis of our current understanding of tumour progression"

    Simultaneously occurring? Again, this flies in the face of common knowledge. The theory is the hematopoietic stem cell is extremely long lived and only divides once a year and so has plenty of time to accumulate genetic mutations. This explains both the average relapse time of one year and also the genetic homogeneity of the leukemic clone. Thus many of their new found eight mutations may be accidental and not disease causing.

    Does anyone have any new light to shed on this? I am not a doctor and would benefit from some guidance on this issue.