Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scientists Engineer Cancer-Killing Stem Cells

Posted by Soulskill on from the stem-cell-rambo dept.

SternisheFan writes with news that medical researchers from Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital have successfully cultivated stem cells that will kill brain cancer cells in mice without damaging healthy cells. "They used genetic engineering to make stem cells that spewed out cancer-killing toxins, but, crucially, were also able to resist the effects of the poison they were producing. ... In animal tests, the stem cells were surrounded in gel and placed at the site of the brain tumor after it had been removed. Their cancer cells then died as they had no defense against the toxins (abstract)." The next step in the research is to try the treatment on humans. Chris Mason, a professor of regenerative medicine, said, "This is a clever study, which signals the beginning of the next wave of therapies. It shows you can attack solid tumors by putting mini pharmacies inside the patient which deliver the toxic payload direct to the tumor. Cells can do so much. This is the way the future is going to be."

46 comments

  1. Let's try it on the bankers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're already brain-dead, so there's no risk.

  2. Stem cells designed to kill brain cells by clickclickdrone · · Score: 3, Funny

    What could possibly go wrong...

    --
    I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    1. Re: Stem cells designed to kill brain cells by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worse would be stem cells designed to eat brain cells. Braaaaains!

    2. Re: Stem cells designed to kill brain cells by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Krippin virus.

    3. Re:Stem cells designed to kill brain cells by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oblig. xkcd.

    4. Re:Stem cells designed to kill brain cells by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What could possibly go wrong...

      You probably killed more brain cells reading the story summary above and posting a comment.

  3. Zombie Apocalypse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sure sounds like a perfect candidate for it. Rots a hole from the brain cavity to the mouth, then biting people infects them with the 'cancer stopping' drugs leading to them become a 'brainless rabid' vector for further infections.

    Only difference is I doubt they'll look quite as scary as they try and depict them in movies, making it even worse and more likely to lure people close for further infections.

    Science trumps Sci-Fi daily, but rarely in as dramatic or impressive a fashion.

  4. Ok, but then... by BigIrv · · Score: 1

    ...how do we kill the stem cells?

    --

    --Good morning fellas; Hand me that thing; Boy, this work's hard; Guys, break's over.
    1. Re:Ok, but then... by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

      Once the brain cells are all consumed they die of starvation. So only lawyers and politicians will be left.

    2. Re: Ok, but then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We wait for the stem cells to turn cancerous and then we kill them with stem cells.

      Wait...

    3. Re:Ok, but then... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      ...how do we kill the stem cells?

      Testify to Congress that they have chemical weapons.

    4. Re:Ok, but then... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I have no idea. But I propose to establish small isolated groups of scientists, technologists, engineers, and mathematicians to work it out.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    5. Re:Ok, but then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God will take care of that. Then we will incur His wrath for trying to do his job in the first place.

      Again, why haven't we outlawed science already??

  5. Someone close to me died of Liver Cancer by Zombie+Ryushu · · Score: 1

    Someone close to me died of Liver Cancer. I wish we had a treatment like this before he died.

    1. Re:Someone close to me died of Liver Cancer by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Someone close to me died of Liver Cancer. I wish we had a treatment like this before he died.

      My wife Susan died of a brain tumor, a Glioblastoma Multiforme, almost 9 years ago (January 13, 2006), just 7 weeks after initial diagnosis. The tumor was right next to her brain stem. Even if not a cure, something like this might have helped her live long enough for other treatments to work more. We had been together for only 20 years and it was over just like that, but I know I was lucky to have her in my life for even that short a span and especially to have those last 7 weeks together.

      Remember Sue...

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  6. Skipping some steps by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 3, Informative

    The article says " In animal tests, the stem cells were surrounded in gel and placed at the site of the brain tumor after it had been removed. Their cancer cells then died as they had no defense against the toxins (abstract)." The next step in the research is to try the treatment on humans."

    They're missing a few steps. How about the next step is to try the treatment in live mice and see if continuous chemotherapy has harmful effects on their brains? How about animal models in the same order as humans (e.g. monkeys) before you try it in humans?

    1. Re:Skipping some steps by NoKaOi · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's poorly worded, but if you read TFA carefully, they did use the treatment in live mice. They surgically removed the tumor, then put the stem cells at the site of where the tumor had been and they killed the remaining cancer cells. The article also contradicts itself in first saying that the next step is testing on humans, and later saying the next step is testing a number of different techniques with it on mice with glioblastoma. Unfortunately the paper itself is behind a paywall.

    2. Re:Skipping some steps by simstick · · Score: 1

      Animal testing is next to useless but too much money involved for the researchers to admit it.

      --
      The best way to ruin your hobby is to try to make a living at it. Waiting on the paperless office since 1997
    3. Re:Skipping some steps by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      It depends on the animal. The closer the animal is to the target, the more likely results are relevant. Mice are a poor choice if you're looking for something to be safe and effective in humans because they're not even primates. But heck, at least they're placentals.

      But you're right. Many drugs that worked in mice don't work in humans, or are toxic or have unacceptable side effects in humans. We can presume it is the other way around too. Hundreds of drugs have been rejected because they weren't effective in mice. Some of those probably would have worked fine in humans.

  7. The bottom line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    There's no profit in curing cancer. Big pharmaceutical conglomerates will find a way to shut down this research. On the contrary, patients that spend their life-savings to lessen the speed of decay is far too profitable.

    1. Re:The bottom line by sribe · · Score: 1

      There's no profit in curing cancer. Big pharmaceutical conglomerates will find a way to shut down this research.

      Well then, please explain why "Big Pharma" has delivered cures for multiple kinds of cancer over the last couple of decades.

      Go ahead, we're all waiting...

    2. Re:The bottom line by mark-t · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wow... didn't have to read very far before I found somebody regurgitating *THIS* conspiracy theory again... of course, like most conspiracy theories, any otherwise entirely logical refutations are attributed as being part of "the cover up", and are excluded from consideration, preventing actual critical analysis.

      There are problems with the pharmaceutical industries in North America, but this is not one of them.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    3. Re:The bottom line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      "cures for multiple kinds of cancer over the last couple of decades"

      I have been unable to find any success stories besides viagra. Which curers?

    4. Re:The bottom line by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      There's no profit in curing cancer.

      Then why are big pharmaceutical conglomerates spending so much money to find cures for cancer?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:The bottom line by stoploss · · Score: 1

      Well then, please explain why "Big Pharma" has delivered cures for multiple kinds of cancer over the last couple of decades.

      Go ahead, we're all waiting...

      Imatinib.
      Sofosbuvir. (remember, the endgame of hep c is liver cancer, so this is both a viral cure and a cancer cure by preventing that outcome)

      That's off the top of my head. I'd put effort into searching for more, but we both know you're just going to move the goalposts.

    6. Re:The bottom line by sribe · · Score: 1

      That's off the top of my head. I'd put effort into searching for more, but we both know you're just going to move the goalposts.

      Seems like you're replying to the wrong person...

    7. Re:The bottom line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      "move the goalposts"

      You just listed names of things. A competent person would know it is necessary to cite what evidence has convinced them that these things are cures.

    8. Re:The bottom line by stoploss · · Score: 2

      It's true. I misparsed the quote block while reading your post. Enjoy the violent agreement.

    9. Re:The bottom line by stoploss · · Score: 1

      No, a competent reader wouldn't spitefully request a lmgtfy.com link. Go ahead and try Google. Hell, sofosbuvir is in the mainstream media, ffs.

      I provided two examples of big pharma drugs that can cure cancer, the evidence for which is trivially confirmable. I didn't bother giving links, because as I said, most people making these aspersions against big pharma and their alleged "non cure" conspiracies have already made up their minds and won't be convinced by facts or peer-reviewed studies.

    10. Re:The bottom line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      "won't be convinced by facts or peer-reviewed studies."

      I am asking for a peer review study you have inspected. Specifically one that has convinced you the drugs you mention are effective. Is there one? Or are you someone who thinks the mainstream media is a reliable source regarding science?

    11. Re:The bottom line by rs79 · · Score: 1

      Because there is huge money in research and drug development?

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    12. Re:The bottom line by stoploss · · Score: 1

      Here are the results of the goddamn clinical trial for sofosbuvir, which were published in JAMA, you lazy fuck:

      http://www.gilead.com/news/pre...

    13. Re:The bottom line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) That is a company press release. You ave somehow found an even less reliable source than the news...
      2) They can't even manage to provide the names of the papers they refer to there
      3) The table at your link shows only "SVR12 rates", which is a measure of viral load. I guessed at what papers they referred to and looked at this one:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23944316. Sure enough, no one even measured cancer rates.So the evidence for this "cancer cure" does not even involve seeing if anyone has cancer...

      It is clear this is not your field and you have based your impression of it on what you hear in the news. In addition to the impossibility for the above studies to be evidence for a cancer cure, the big open secret is that 80-90% of what is published in biomed cannot be replicated. That's right, we would be better off letting these people come up with an idea then flipping a coin, rather than trusting their analysis of the data.

      http://www.jove.com/blog/2012/05/03/studies-show-only-10-of-published-science-articles-are-reproducible-what-is-happening

    14. Re:The bottom line by stoploss · · Score: 1

      You lack reading comprehension. You seem dead set on requesting something like this, so here you go:
      http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sofosbuvi...

      Surprise, the results are right there, without any need for you to feign some sort of difficulty trying to locate them on pubmed. It's almost like you're being deliberately disingenuous. Oh wait, it's not "almost like".

      You're free to presume that a patient who has had their hep c cured is still prone to develop liver carcinoma/cirrhosis, but now the burden of proof is on you to propose the etiology and back that up with studies.

      Since you have apparently found pubmed, though lack the ability to operate a search there, you can also see what imatinib has done for the survival rates of patients with bcr-abl.

      But, you know, I already called it: you aren't convinced by peer reviewed studies.

    15. Re:The bottom line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You're free to presume that a patient who has had their hep c cured is still prone to develop liver carcinoma/cirrhosis, but now the burden of proof is on you to propose the etiology and back that up with studies."

      The problem is you are being slippery here. You refuse to cite anything specific forcing me to go through however many dozens to thousands of papers that exist on this topic, any or all of them being flawed (as I said, we should expect any given study to be flawed). Exactly what evidence has convinced you there is a link between hep-c and liver carcinoma?

      "you aren't convinced by peer reviewed studies."

      Only people unfamiliar with what goes on think peer review is a sufficient condition for a study to be reliable, for a start check out the link on 10% replication rates...

    16. Re:The bottom line by stoploss · · Score: 1

      Exactly what evidence has convinced you there is a link between hep-c and liver carcinoma?

      http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22hepati...

      Can't decide if you're being deliberately dense or are just ignorant. You will note also the WHO link on the first page of results, among the plethora of other confirmations. The burden of proof is on you if you believe there is no link between hep c and liver cancer (what do you think these people are dying of, anyway?). This is like asserting there is no link between bacterial infection and otitis media.

      Furthermore, if you're asserting that patients cured of hep c remain at equivalent risk to develop liver carcinoma as if the virus is allowed to continue wreaking havoc on the liver, then the burden of proof is on you there as well. Proposing a mechanism for that would be a start.

      Seriously, next up you will be expecting pubmed citations (that you will reject out of hand) that beta-lactams have any bacteriocidal effect. Because that's what Alexander Fleming wanted you to believe, and the decades of results in research and practice are nothing more than statistical error or deliberate academic fraud.

    17. Re:The bottom line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please stop with the googling rather than citing any specific evidence. I already noted why this is not productive. I would not expect you to be convinced if I found error in just a single paper that result from the google search, so it is pointless for me to check an arbitrary one. WHO is not peer reviewed so that does not even meet one of your basic criteria for reliability. Pick one or a few papers that, if they were found to be flawed, would make you reconsider your position. We can't really proceed otherwise. I am interested in finding success stories, but do not have time right now to delve into that entire set of literature to determine what is important. If you cannot do this, I have noted your two examples and will investigate when/if I get time. Thank you for pointing them out.

    18. Re:The bottom line by simstick · · Score: 1

      Bingo.

      --
      The best way to ruin your hobby is to try to make a living at it. Waiting on the paperless office since 1997
    19. Re:The bottom line by stoploss · · Score: 1

      Okay, we're done if you aren't going to believe the plethora of evidence that is trivially available. Hepatitis C can cause liver cancer. I mean, at this point you are asserting that everyone, the WHO included, is delusional or is in on a vast conspiracy.

      This is not something that gets cited to a handful of peer reviewed studies (which you will reject anyway) when the causal relationship is known and was elucidated a long time ago.

      Oh look, more trivial googling.
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/...

      You are asking me to provide a study that would make me change my mind that there is a causal link between chronic hep c infection and developing cirrhosis and subsequently liver cancer? Are you serious? How about you provide a reputable study that asserts chronic hep c infection is harmless and purports to show that this patient population has no increased risk for cirrhosis or cancer.

      I understand you're skeptical, but here's how this particular claim works:
      1) Chronic hepatitis C infection causes cirrhosis & cancer.
      1a) This is caused by a virus (no, I'm not going to cite that either)
      2) Current therapy regimens have abysmal cure rates, and often result in resistant forms of the virus causing refractoriness to the therapy
      3) Sofosbuvir was designed to inhibit a specific virally coded enzyme (the viral RNA polymerase). This worked in vitro and subsequently in clinical trials.
      4) Studies have shown sofobuvir can clear the viral infection as a monotherapy in the preponderance of cases.
      5) Clearing the virus stops the ongoing damage to the liver that is caused by virus.
      6) Thus, the hep c induced cirrhosis/cancer is "cured" before it has a chance to manifest.

      Now, if you want to debate whether big pharma is acting ethically, we can discuss how they priced the curative therapy at 90% of the expected lifetime cost of care for a patient with hepatitis C, resulting in a charge of something like $90k per patient/course of treatment. This is controversial because, for example, the charge to California taxpayer-funded healthcarr programs alone would be in the billions of dollars.

    20. Re:The bottom line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You are asking me to provide a study that would make me change my mind that there is a causal link between chronic hep c infection and developing cirrhosis and subsequently liver cancer?"

      This is incorrect. I asked for one or a few that, if they were found to be flawed, would make you reconsider. If you cannot do this, you are acting on belief/opinion rather than evidence and it will be impossible to ever convince you otherwise using evidence (if that evidence does exist).

      It appears you cannot, or refuse to, do this and have implied multiple times that your beliefs are based on various heuristics (appeal to authority, etc). So as I said, thank you for mentioning these drugs so that I can look into it for myself when/if I get time. Sorry for being so rude at the beginning, but it really is annoying when people are just arguing from different authorities detached from the evidence itself.

  8. Wade Wilson, eat your heart out. by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    Or your brain tumors, as it were.

  9. Is it really new? by rs79 · · Score: 1

    Gerry Potter's research led to what he calls "pro-drug paradigm" that is it's not a drug, it's turned into a drug by something, then becomes active.

    I met one of this guys friends in Starbucks once and we became good friends and he explained a bunch of this stuff to me. Here's the short version:

    The Cytochrome P450 enzyme CYP1B1 [1] only occurs in cancer cells [2][3]. When certain phytoallexins such as resveratrol and salvestrol are ingested these phytoalexins are converted by the P450 enzyme into piceatannol [4], which is fatal to cancer cells but not human cells [5][6].

      [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
      [2] http://cancerres.aacrjournals....
      [3] http://secure.salvestrol.ca/se...
      [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
      [5] http://www.nature.com/bjc/jour...
      [6] http://www.orthomolecular.org/...

    Here's some articles and stuff:
    http://www.thisisleicestershir...

    "Prostate cancer drug so effective trial stopped"
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/hea...

    Pat ettenttion to the colors on this map: http://www.cancerresearchuk.or...

    If you poke around you can find cliical repoets online. All people seem to get better and this stuff has been around since 2007.

    So, I think they're on to something here... and it may be a a way to Patent Potter's second discovery (based on CYP1B1) which is not patentable. His first discovery based on CYP17 was patentable and sold for two billion untested.

    They're awfully skint on the biochemical explanation.

    --
    Need Mercedes parts ?
  10. Avoid damanging healthy cells by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    Summary says the engineered stem cells avoid damaging healthy cells, but TFA does not tell about it. How do they avoid that?

  11. slice & dice by justcauseisjustthat · · Score: 1

    I love how this treatment requires slicing and dicing the patient, let's get anti-cd47 treatments moving. Stanford has clinical trials moving, hopefully they expand it and it continues to go well.

  12. Brain cancer and the 29 yer old giving up by mooshie+lala · · Score: 1

    Has anyone from your research tried to contact her!

  13. Allow for voluntary human trials by Methadras · · Score: 1

    The time for voluntary human trials needs to be established. Protocols to fast track this type of advancement need to be done.