Slashdot Mirror
Biological 'Logic Circuit' Destroys Cancer Cells
intellitech writes "Researchers led by ETH professor Yaakov Benenson and MIT professor Ron Weiss have successfully incorporated diagnostic biological information processing in human cells. In a study recently published in Science (abstract), they describe a multi-gene synthetic 'logic circuit' whose task is to distinguish between cancer and healthy cells, and subsequently target cancer cells for destruction. This circuit works by sampling and integrating five intracellular, cancer-specific molecular factors and their concentration. The circuit makes a positive identification only when all factors are present in the cell, resulting in highly precise cancer detection. Researchers hope it can serve a basis for very specific anti-cancer treatments."
That is really cool.... it won't go terribly wrong, right?
Get a web developer
I think we have all lost either a family member/friend/coworker to cancer. It seems they are making a lot of progress. Not long ago was the method to use reprogrammed safe HIV. I really hope cancer can take the polio route soon.
Sure hope they figure this out in the next 20 years so I can grow to be as old as a tree.
I'm not counting, how many prospective cancer cures this month? I'm rooting for every one, but still.
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
You really want to impress me, show me an "XOR" - either of two indications, but not both.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Just based on the abstract, it sounds a lot like they've just tweaked the Cell cycle checkpoint mechanism. Your cells already use MicroRNA and miRNA to prevent tumor growth in a sort of sensor-effector "logic circuit" based on multiple inputs and feedback.
The abstract isn't clear enough about how this artificial process is different or constitutes a "logic circuit" that's novel relative to the natural mechanism. Not that it doesn't work better, but calling it a "logic circuit" seems sorta self-promoty, like when computer researchers in the 40s called computers "electronic brains."
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Sorry for being cynical, but it seems we get all sorts of researchers making breakthrough discoveries and then it takes a decade or longer for the stuff to get out to the general public to be used.
That's the wonder of government regulation. It's better that you die of cancer than risk taking a treatment that might save you.
because otherwise it would kill you. but we wouldn't want that to slow down progress, now would we?
..this reminds me of nanomachines from Cowboy Bebop: The Movie.
So, technically then, it would be possible to inject this into a common virus, and encode the logic circuit with a specific molecular pattern... ie DNA? So, if we have someone's DNA, we can custom build a viral bomb to travel through the entire population, and once it hits the person, it could cause life threatening alterations to their body chemistry?
That's probably beyond the scope of this research, but once you have a biological logic circuit, it's just a finite matter of time before it's put to military/political use.
I8-D
"Bring in the logic probe!"
When someone says, "Any fool can see
Coo coo la looo!
Yes, of course, and AIDS can be cured by drinking lemonade. Dumb scientists!
This is bullshit, but what happens when someone reads this, decides scientists are much less knowledgable than your average grandma, and doesn't go to a doctor because sodium bicarbonate cures everything? At the time I'm writing this, the OP is modded +2 interesting. However good rule of thumb would be to disregard any post that claims to have found a very simple and natural solution to a problem that has been baffling scientists for decades.
Throughout human history, it has always been easier to kill someone with a new invention than to save someone. This may be the next generation of biological weapons.
Z.Xie, L.Wroblewska, and L. Prochazka, who all were listed as authors before the professors, seem to have done the bulk of the work. Kudos to you.
And the cancer wouldn't? Don't be such a fool. We live in a country where acne medication requires constant blood work to make sure they're not taking a big steamy dump on your kidneys, or rape your liver if you do what everybody with a severe acne problem is doing and drink away the pain. On the other hand, something that might kill a dying patient can't be used because they might, uh, die if it doesn't work right?
If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
I have wondered to myself a few times if it would be possible to reprogram an intracellular parasite to become a new "immortality" organelle.
Take for instance, the work with toxoplasma gondii. This is already an intracellular parasite, which has been fully sequenced and even fully reprogrammed in the lab.
we suspect that much of 'old age' is the genetic breakdown of chromosomes from cellular mitosis, which causes a limit to the number of times a healthy cell culture can divide, and further impact the functional health of tissues made from such aged cellular populations.
Incorporating a failsafe backup of the chromosomes of the host, detecting cancer factors, and selectively disabling some the tumor suppression genes in the host that restrict tissue regeneration would radically increase the lifespan of the host.
The idea I had in mind was for the endoparasite to contain a normal bacterial genome capsid, for the organism's own cellular activites, and for the cancer detection and apoptosis trigger of the host--- but also to contain a fully synthetic non-replicating copy of the host's genome. (Perhaps it could be phosphorilated or in some other manner rendered bioologically inactive in the parasite.)
The idea is that as the telomeres of the host's genome break down, it triggers the biological equivalent of running fsck on the host genome, then rebuilds the host telomeres- essentially restarting the cell division clock, and rejuvenating the host tissue.
The problem I haven't come up with a suitable answer for, is how to cope if the organisms end up in the WRONG host.
We don't want aunt mae turning into uncle ben on the genetic level after they shag, for instance.
The organisms need a way to update the template, withou updating to a BROKEN template in the host.
I am not a genetic engineer, so I haven't thout too deeply on the matter, but I could deffinately see something like this turning somebody essentially immortal.
...it can serve a basis for very specific biological weapons.
There I fixed that for you
No mater how stupid you may thing a brain storming idea is, you don't disregard it.
Yes you do, because funding is limited. There has to be a credibility threshold before you start doing experiments. Anyway, we're not speaking about science here, but about how to react when you read such a claim on an internet forum. Any post claiming "scientists are doing it wrong and the cure is actually very simple" has "quack" written all over it.
Sorry, your "universal cure" is so much more difficult that I don't see it as even worth working on right now.
Problems are:
1) Different cells do different things, and have different genes active at different times.
2) We are rather dependent on lots of micro-organisms that aren't human. So much so that they usually add up to around half our weight (I'm quite uncertain of the exact percentage, but it's hugely more that is commonly believed.) So you'd need to identify and exclude all of the necessary microorganisms from the "cure". And even then it's more complicated, as most of the microorganisms are only allowed to exist in certain parts of the body. So you've got to map micro-organism against location in your exclusion list.
Much easier to just tackle one problem at a time.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
You do know how researchers get funding, don't you?
Let me give you a hint, its not by telling everyone the realistic outcome of their research.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
The AC's link goes to a domain squatted by those "what you need, when you need it" assholes.
Here is the site that I assume the AC meant to link to (one of several near-identical sites, also including cancerfungus.com).
Here is a Wikipedia article mentioning Tullio Simoncini, the guy behind said site:
For bonus points, here is a defense of the idea written by David Icke, infamous "world leaders are really evil reptile aliens in disguise!" conspiracy theorist. And here is another positive mention at cancerfightingstrategies.com, and here is that site's "where to get products" page with a mix of bogus vitamins, bogus berries, and faith healers.
Not to mention the cytokine storm that happens if you can't slow the process down enough.
brb. hands just commiteted suicide.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
One is the fact that the "Man In Black" will be visiting you (unless you are immortal)
the other is that the "Man In Black" has penciled you in for a date in the near future for his visit.
but yes Live with as little fear as possible so that the record shows you had a WILD RIDE (and most likely skidded for a week afterwards).
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
This is cancer treatment, but I agree: The ability to incorporate "logical" switches that react to markers in the DNA makes it suddenly possible to develop biological agents that are targeted towards specific subgroups of the human population.
So explain how it is that cancer cells actually operate aerobically when in proximity to a blood vessel? Cancer cells only operate anaerobically when they're out of proximity to blood supply.
Oh, and you can't change the pH to a non-acid level, otherwise universal cell death occurs. All cells have an acidic pH. Or are scientists wrong about that too?
I mean, heaven forbid your body gets filled with amino acids. They cause cancer, so you should avoid them at all costs. Really, it's to your benefit. No, seriously, please personally avoid consuming anything with amino acids. We'll all be better off.
If we're talking about gene targeting I dont think microorganisms will be a big problem.
1) This is why the logic circuit targets things that are
a) present in cancer cells that are not present in other cells at the same levels and
b) uses a "multi-input" circuit. This means multiple abnormalities present in the same cell. This is common in cancer cells, but not in normal cells.
2) Mammals have apoptotic (killswitch) pathways that can be used that are not present in microbes. The biologist/doctors developing this are likely aware of the importance of a microbiome. However, even if this treatment killed every microbe in the body, a simple transfaunation (microbe transfusion) would solve the problem in the one area that is unlikely to spontaneously repopulate quickly (gut). We are born pretty much sterile, remember. There are worse things than killing off the bugs. One of them is cancer.
A valid concern. I think dosing may address that though. There is no reason to give a dose high enough to kill every cancer cell at once.