Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Virus Tamed To Attack Cancer, Cancer Drugs To Treat Alcoholism

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the and-alcohol-to-treat-the-common-cold dept.

ScienceDaily is reporting that scientists at Oxford University seem to have adapted a virus so that it attacks cancer cells but does not hurt healthy cells. "Adenovirus is a DNA virus widely used in cancer therapy but which causes hepatic disease in mice. Professor Len Seymour and colleagues found that introducing sites into the virus genome that are recognized by microRNA 122 leads to hepatic degradation of important viral mRNA, thereby diminishing the virus' ability to adversely affect the liver, while maintaining its ability to replicate in and kill tumor cells." Relatedly, cancer drugs already approved for use may be cross-functional as a treatment for alcohol addiction. "Now, the researchers show that flies and mice treated with erlotinib also grow more sensitive to alcohol. What's more, rats given the cancer-fighting drug spontaneously consumed less alcohol when it was freely available to them. Their taste for another rewarding beverage -- sugar water -- was unaffected."

8 of 128 comments (clear)

  1. This doesn't seem right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Am I the only one made uncomfortable by the thought of introducing genetically engineered viruses into people, even if it is only for medical treatment? ...

    *starts assembling his Zombie Apocalypse kit*

  2. What could possibly go wrong by gmuslera · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For the cancer patient could be an improvement over other alternatives.

    But if you play with living things there, things that try to survive replicating, mutating, and in the case of virus, finding more hosts.

    Of course, getting rid of that particular virus could be easier than getting rid of cancer, and that is something more to put into consideration.

  3. I know that nobody cares, but... by MythoBeast · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Most of what we call alcoholism has been cured. The problem is that anybody who might tell alcoholics about it is either financially or emotionally invested in an existing treatment. It's like religion (see responses to this post as demonstration), and it's very frustrating.

    For all the details, see the recently published book on the topic. I'm not selling the book, and if you want the details for free, I can provide you with that, too.

    --
    Wake up - the future is arriving faster than you think.
    1. Re:I know that nobody cares, but... by Psyborgue · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ok. So it's naltrexone therapy. Good option. Did you know AA actively lobbied against Naltrexone. There was a Penn and Teller episode on AA that told the story briefly. See this video at about 7:50. The whole episode is fantastic, but they're a bit brief on the statistics. Stanton Peele covers those in depth in his books in which he takes a look at George Vaillant's original data. It's rare to find somebody else who is interested in the study of addiction. Feel free to shoot me an email sometime at psyborgue@mac.com. I'd love to know what you're background in this is if you feel comfortable.

    2. Re:I know that nobody cares, but... by MythoBeast · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, no, not standard naltrexone therapy. Naltrexone is distributed with instructions not to drink. It is often cocktailed with antibuse which makes you sick if you drink. The problem with this is that, if you don't drink, the urge to drink doesn't go away.

      Given standard naltrexone therapy, most alcoholics will stay abstinent until the craving overwhelms them, and then give up the naltrexone and start drinking again.

      I'll take this offline and we can compare notes.

      --
      Wake up - the future is arriving faster than you think.
  4. Another interesting virus/cancer therapy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    is Ultrasound-Inducible Gene Therapy by Dr. A. Funicello M.D. http://alexfunicellomd.changeip.org/

  5. Re:Replication is dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not as dangerous as you'd think...Viruses pick up DNA strands from the host as they are made by the hosts cells, this is primarily what causes rapid mutation and why H1N1 contains human, swine, and avian DNA-this strain has been transmitted between these three animals. The only harm would be if the virus was contagious (thus it would pick up DNA and mutate as it spread), or if it could not be cleared from the host (this is less dangerous, but the less dormant viruses the better). In medical uses, viral therapy appears pretty safe and has a lot of potential. A virus is more like a machine than a living thing...why not use it as a tool? My issue would be: Do we know enough about genetics to pull this off without raising something negative that was previously unconsidered.

  6. Re:Replication is dangerous by toppavak · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Producing high concentrations of viral nanoparticles is extremely feasible and hardly a technical challenge. Protein synthesis is something biotech has gotten very good at, even at industrial scales. Repeat dosing with an inert nanoparticle would still be highly preferable to the use of a "live" virus.

    you just have to be extremely careful that they can't mutate in a way that harms cells you're wanting left alone

    That's a much taller order than simply synthesizing more virus to inject. Figuring that out would certainly be Nobel Prize worthy as you've just discovered a key method in eradicating HIV, the flu and many other viruses that mutate too quickly to be properly controlled by vaccination or antivirals.