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."

33 of 128 comments (clear)

  1. I am Legend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Shaded of I Am Legend here...

  2. Rats consume less alcohol by moon3 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Rats given the cancer-fighting drug spontaneously consumed less alcohol when it was freely available to them

    I didn't know that rats "spontaneously" consume alcohol when it is freely available to them.

    1. Re:Rats consume less alcohol by symes · · Score: 3, Funny

      I didn't know that rats "spontaneously" consume alcohol when it is freely available to them.

      Not beer - they have trouble climbing the side of the glass. Most other drinks are ok though.

  3. Replication is dangerous by toppavak · · Score: 5, Informative

    In any virus intended for therapeutic use in humans, allowing the virus to retain its reproductive mechanisms is just a bad idea. Viruses mutate rapidly and there's no guarantee that such a modified virus might not develop the right signals to enter and reproduce in healthy human cells. More promising efforts using engineered viruses involve the isolated production of viral structural RNA and coat proteins without the complete genome ever being copied or reproduced. This creates viral smart-particles that can be re-engineered to deliver payloads (therapeutics, contrast agents, nanoparticles etc) into targeted cell species. Nanovector is a recent start-up out of NC State University to commercialize this tech developed at a lab I used to work in as an undergrad.

    1. 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.

    2. Re:Replication is dangerous by RDW · · Score: 2, Informative

      'In any virus intended for therapeutic use in humans, allowing the virus to retain its reproductive mechanisms is just a bad idea.'

      Not necessarily. Obviously there are risks (and this is just a proof of concept experiment), but as the original paper explains:

      http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1000440

      'Viruses have a highly successful history as prophylactic vaccines and are also being developed for their intrinsic anticancer activities. In both settings the ability to undergo restricted replication is highly desirable. Attenuated (but not killed) viral strains often represent the most effective viral vaccines, affording the possibility of persistent low level infection without significant pathology.'

      In other words, you want the virus to replicate in a controlled way, so that (e.g.) it hits more cancer cells than a non-replicating vector. Traditionally, 'attenuated' viruses have been used for vaccines and for anti-tumour experiments, but this tends to make them less effective than they might otherwise be. The trick they've used in this paper is selective attenuation - they've inserted an 'off switch' that responds to a microRNA that's expressed in liver (where the virus might do harm), but not elsewhere (where the virus is needed). Also, the adenovirus used in these studies isn't some exotic replicating construct with a deadly payload, but a rather common virus that generally causes mild disease even in its unattenuated form. It may not even be necessary to deliver a foreign gene to the tumour - replication-selective but otherwise normal adenoviruses can have intrinsic anti-tumour ('oncolytic') activity if they are engineered to prefer replicating in tumour cells. One common strategy is to delete a viral gene normally used to evade the cell's p53 response. The virus can then only replicate in cells with an already damaged p53 pathway (like many tumour cells!):

      http://www.jci.org/articles/view/9762

    3. Re:Replication is dangerous by RDW · · Score: 4, Informative

      '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 Flu virus is a rather unusual case - its genome (in fact RNA rather than DNA) is made up of 8 segments that can easily be swapped around ('reassorted') when two different strains infect the same animal (8 segments with 2 versions of each = 2^8 = 256 possible new viruses). This isn't true for the adenovirus used in the article, which has an unsegmented DNA genome, but there's still some concern that a therapeutic strain might 'recombine' with a wild-type strain:

      http://vir.sgmjournals.org/cgi/content/full/89/2/380

      This is one reason why you have to be careful when adding (e.g.) new genes to viruses of this type (as in gene therapy). It's rather less of a concern when doing the sort of experiment described in the original article, where the replication of the virus is partially blocked rather than enhanced, and where no new genes are added.

    4. 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.

  4. alternative by legirons · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Their taste for another rewarding beverage -- sugar water -- was unaffected."

    research sponsored by coke?

  5. Re:This doesn't seem right by Zapotek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, the human body is already full of bacteria and other helpful microbes without which it wouldn't be able to survive.
    We're not just "persons" we're mobile ecosystems.
    Although it may sound creepy at first, if you rationally think it through a virus that "makes you better" is not such a bad idea after all.
    Oh, I almost forgot, we are all injected with weakened viruses at some point of our lives so that our immune system will be able to form the right antibodies to defend itself when the real thing comes along.
    Think of it like that...

  6. Re-branding by theMoleofProduction · · Score: 5, Funny

    So viruses can cure cancer.

    Well what about all those cancer drugs we have already? They'll just sit on the shelves!

    No no, we can use them to treat alcoholism.

    But what about all the booze!? Pour it down the drain?

    No, of course not. We're going to re-brand alcoholic beverages as medication. We're investigating is usefulness in treating social anxiety. While our trials are still in progress, the initial data looks very promising. We've also patented a time-release delivery system. With any hope, we'll have millions of people prescribed daily doses of the new wonder drug.

    Excellent!

    --
    Chemists do it with moles.
  7. John Titor by Niris · · Score: 3, Informative

    Along the same lines as I Am Legend, there was that whole John Titor thing back in 2000 where the guy writing it said stuff about using viruses to attack cancer. Yay internet culture to science.

    1. Re:John Titor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh please. That was his timeline. In ours, the federal government heeded Titor's warning of potential civil war and carried out the 9/11 attacks to create greater social unity in the US. Titor probably didn't consider what effect his internet posts would have on the timeline, or that the early 21st century feds would gladly sacrifice a few thousand Americans and a couple Muslim nations for continued dominance.

  8. 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.

    1. Re:What could possibly go wrong by alexborges · · Score: 3, Funny

      1) make the new virus an STBD (beneficial disease)
      2) THrow a big extasis rave with a whole cancer ward.
      3) Spike the all beverages with spanish fly

      There. That is true god shining thru: all you need to do to cure your cancer is fuck like a bunny.

      Mhm... I should patent this!

      --
      NO SIG
  9. Re:Pay more attention to comics and movies... by Harinezumi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because we all know that movie script writers always do their homework to get their science right and never ever engage in simple-minded fearmongering.

  10. Re:Fungus in my cancer? More likely than you think by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 3, Informative

    By "alternative medical folk" do you mean quacks, or were you just misrepresenting their positions? Cancer as host cells gone awry (possibly due to an initial external influence, with the external influence not necessary for continued growth) is incontrovertible. If certain anti-fungals work on them, it's because it happens to work as an anti-cancer drug, it doesn't mean the cancer is fungus.

    --
    $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
  11. 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 artor3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've never heard of this book, or any other cures for alcoholism. I don't know any alcoholics, nor do I have any particular concern for them. But I know that whenever someone comes out and claims to have a cure that the man is trying to keep down, it's likely to be a load of crap.

      But hey, if you believe in that, I have a carburetor for sale that'll give your car 200 mpg.

    2. Re:I know that nobody cares, but... by Psyborgue · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not that I'm endorsing the cure this man purports to sell, but the 12 steppers are a cultic bunch who attack anybody who dares critize their authority over the addiction treatment industry. Check out the end of this book chapter written by Stanton Peele. Stanton Peele is a man who has been pushing for a more scientific and less religious (12 step) approach to alcohol and addiction treatment. 12 steppers believe, for instance that the 12 steps were given to Bill Wilson by God. This is what's passed off as science in the addiction industry. AA is very very hostile towards any drug based treatment of alcoholism and has lobbied against drugs that treat alcohol dependence. They do this because they believe alcohoism is a "spiritual disease" and that the only true treatment is through god as interpred through the 12 steps. It's just about the only religion (and it has been ruled a religious organization by the courts) that the state mandates people attend. Does it work? No, and in some cases may actually cause harm (Brandsma study), but that's whole other can of worms.

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

      The basis of the treatment can be summed up fairly quickly. Drinking alcohol releases endorphins, and the endorphins addict us to the alcohol with a force identical to morphine addiction. Taking an endorphin blocker results in a reversal of this effect, where drinking makes you loose interest in drinking over time.

      The treatment that results from this effect is equally simple. You have the alcoholic take an endorphin blocker (naltrexone is typical) and then have them pursue their normal drinking habits. After about three to six months, 78% have significantly reduced desire to drink, 25% just stop drinking and have no desire to pick it back up again. I think you can see how this would put Betty Ford out of business and is indirect opposition to AA.

      The fine details are a little more complicated, but only because it goes against a lot of logic. For instance, most people expect it to have a "diet pill" effect where it suppresses your urge to drink, and that's how the naltrexone tends to be prescribed. Used this way you'd actually have better results with a placebo, and people give up when it doesn't work that way.

      But they wouldn't have to write a book if there were nothing else to say, would they?

      --
      Wake up - the future is arriving faster than you think.
    4. 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.

    5. 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.
    6. Re:I know that nobody cares, but... by Psyborgue · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ya think!?!?! The problem is that although the SC has ruled on the matter, nobody seems to care. Unless you have an attorney who knows what he's doing in this area, you can be sentenced to a religious organization for "treatment". Universities and Jobs coerce AA too, and good luck fighting them on it. There are too many members out there, and unlike most religions, you don't know who they are. What's so bad about it, other than principle? Well. despite the fact that AA gets 70% of it's membership from the health care and justice systems, there is the problem of people getting sucked in by cult-like means of deception.

      Put yourself in the position of some shmo who for whatever reason (maybe with cause, maybe not) gets sent to a 12 step "recovery" group. Well. The "recovery" thing is sort of deceptive as they don't actually cure anything. There is frighteningly little in 12 step groups about actually quitting much of anything (save critical thinking which is referred to as "stinking thinking" in AA). "Recovery" in AA means lifelong meetings, relationship with a higher power, and strict adherence to AA doctrine which 12 steppers believe is "god inspired" through Bill Wilson (who was actually not that nice a charachter). I have no problem with religions if they advertise accurately, but AA masquerads as something it isn't, and loads it's language to decieve outsiders into believing it's something it's not. The lack of informed consent is what makes AA more cult-like than religion. People come in looking for help to quit drinking (or not) and are told that the *only* way is with AA and it's religious principles... or you *will die*.

      So how did AA get so popular? Well. Couple reasons. 12th step, for one, is built in evangelism. You don't always know who they are. They don't advertise. They're anonymous after all. Secondly, oodles of people believing they have been helped, when often they're worse off. It's anecdotal evidence. What else do you expect. Thirdly, AA front groups like Hazelden have actively lobbied judges and others in authority.

      End result of all this is religion in government and science gone down the pan.

  12. 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/

  13. Wow... by osu-neko · · Score: 3, Funny

    I never knew alcoholism was a big problem for mice. Nice to know we've developed a treatment. Some of Mickey's behavior was getting kinda embarrassing...

    --
    "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
  14. Maybe they're jumping to conclusions by hort_wort · · Score: 3, Funny

    If I were a rat with cancer, I'd probably be drunk all the time too. Then when another rat sneezed on me and transmitted the cure like it was a cold, I imagine I wouldn't be motivated to drink so much. In fact, I'd really clean up my act trying to woo that other rat who sneezed and saved my life.

  15. Re:Fungus in my cancer? More likely than you think by SUB7IME · · Score: 3, Funny

    Ahh, yes. A tyrosine kinase inhibitor can play a role in alcoholism. But wait, cancer cells have tyrosine kinases, too!

    I've found the connection between cancer and alcoholism: they both occur in human beings.

  16. Re:Pay more attention to comics and movies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Because we all know that movie script writers always do their homework to get their science right

    Well, they did their homework pretty well in "I Am Legend".

    Everybody knows that the only way to survive the Zombie movie is with a 12-gauge shotgun. Will Smith's character uses the M4 carbine, and dies. His companion, Alice Braga's character, uses a shotgun and survives. QED

  17. Re:Pay more attention to comics and movies... by moogied · · Score: 2, Informative
    No one will get this sir.

    I am legend the book was about the story he just said. One guy thought he was the only survivor, but lived ONLY during the day. As such, he never saw the "crazy vampires" at night. SOME of them were indeed insane.. but most of them were normal people that just looked crazy. Anyways, "Legend man" slaughtered a ton until they tricked him with a little girl.. then at the end they tell him they are killing him because HE is the "vampire" like creature. Thus.. HE is THE legend.

    --
    So basically, -1 troll/offtopic is really slashdots way of saying "I hate that you thought of something before me."
  18. Re:This doesn't seem right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Although it may sound creepy at first, if you rationally think it through a virus that "makes you better" is not such a bad idea after all.

    Tell that to the Xenu's loyal psychiatrists, who did something similar 70 million years ago. Oh wait, you can't; because their "happy virus", while being immediately very effective, eventually mutated and then drove every humanoid in the entire galaxy into a deep depression, ultimately causing them all to jump off the nearest bridge.

    Monkeys and apes, being not completely similar to humanoids, managed to survive the 'viruscost', and they grew fat on the decaying corpses of the prior-day humans. The apes multiplied, and so now we're simply an evolution of their apish bodies, inhabited by the confused, and virus ridden thetans of yore. This is a Bad Idea.

    © 2009 Church of Spiritual Technology, all rights reserved. Times approximate. No Warranty Expressed or Implied. Limited time offer, call now to insure prompt delivery. Free shipping to the continental United States. External use only. All models over 18 years of age. May have been packaged on machinery also used to package nuts. If condition persists, consult your physician.

  19. Re:For Laymen.. by SUB7IME · · Score: 2, Informative

    Totally not your fault. My comment about the two stories being unrelated was something of a snide jab at the "relatedly" claim made in the summary.

    So, article #1 is talking about the use of a modified virus to target a cancer. Actually, to be more accurate, it's talking about modifying a virus to avoid causing liver damage while killing cancer cells.

    Apparently, the adenovirus strain that they used in this trial does a good job of killing cancer cells. However, it also does a good job of killing liver cells.

    What they did was introduced a liver-specific microRNA binding site to the virus. Therefore, when the virus infects the liver and produces RNA, the liver's naturally-produced microRNA will recognize this and bind to it. That's all in the article, but I'll extrapolate and assume that the body's typical dsRNA mechanisms kick in at that point, destroy the RNA, and possibly induce an antiviral response.

    So essentially, it appears that they're using a virus that is good at killing cancer but is also good at destroying the liver, and they're attaching a liver-specific "kill me" tag so that the liver can protect itself.

  20. Re:I want a male birth control virus by yamfry · · Score: 2, Funny

    That seems a little more complex than it needs to be. The most effective form of male birth control yet created is a fake name and phone number.