Slashdot Mirror


US Scientists Successfully 'Switch Off' Cancer Cells

iONiUM sends news that Mayo Clinic cancer researchers have developed a technique to reprogram cancer cells in a lab, essentially "turning off" their excessive cell growth. That code was unraveled by the discovery that adhesion proteins — the glue that keeps cells together — interact with the microprocessor, a key player in the production of molecules called microRNAs (miRNAs). The miRNAs orchestrate whole cellular programs by simultaneously regulating expression of a group of genes (abstract). The investigators found that when normal cells come in contact with each other, a specific subset of miRNAs suppresses genes that promote cell growth. However, when adhesion is disrupted in cancer cells, these miRNAs are misregulated and cells grow out of control. The investigators showed, in laboratory experiments, that restoring the normal miRNA levels in cancer cells can reverse that aberrant cell growth.

29 of 52 comments (clear)

  1. I'll believe it when I see it.... by MagickalMyst · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When I see it in practice with proven real world results.

    Too often these promising studies generate all kinds of hype and then disappear shortly thereafter.

    --
    Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
    1. Re:I'll believe it when I see it.... by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, if you're a regular on Slashdot, it seems like we've been finding a cure for cancer and HIV for the last 20 years or so. Also, we will have a space elavator, fusion energy, flying cars and Linux on the desktop in just 5 more years!.

      I realize this is amazingly complex stuff and that research takes time... but I really do hope that scientists are not just fishing for a Nobel price, and performing endless theoretical research without ever thinking about practical applications.

    2. Re:I'll believe it when I see it.... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Yeah, if you're a regular on Slashdot, it seems like we've been finding a cure for cancer and HIV for the last 20 years or so.

      We have.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    3. Re:I'll believe it when I see it.... by Talderas · · Score: 4, Informative

      We have not found a cure for either. What we have found is more effective treatments that reduce the rate of mortality. Earlier detection of cancers allows doctors and surgeons to treat and operate on cancers before they have time to grow and spread. We can get to a point where we no longer detect cancerous cells in your body but you are by no means cured because the detection is not absolute.

      Treatments for HIV has helped many people avoid having it develop into AIDS but we haven't cured HIV. The people going through treatments still have HIV and are still at risk of it developing into AIDS.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    4. Re:I'll believe it when I see it.... by Roodvlees · · Score: 1

      And they have made many improvements to cancer treatments. Maybe your interpretation of science making a small incremental step is flawed. Although this sounds like a pretty big step to me. The next step would be to do it in a live test subject.

      --
      Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
    5. Re:I'll believe it when I see it.... by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

      There was actually one person who was cured of HIV who received a marrow transplant from an HIV resistant donor.

      Later two more people who had HIV with a non HIV resistant donor who showed no signs of the disease for about a year, and then it returned, and often when you hear about the first story, people confuse it with the second one where the two individuals recurred with the disease, and thus believe that the first guy still has HIV, but he doesn't.

      It seems that the process of irradiating the body of its own marrow also destroys HIV, but it will return if the t-cells aren't resistant to the virus because there are certain areas of the body where the virus can survive the radiation treatment.

      http://www.livescience.com/480...

    6. Re:I'll believe it when I see it.... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      This is about understanding, not yet about a cure. With more understanding comes a higher probability of finding something that can actually cure cancer. I don't know what you complain about here, not even the title is misleading.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    7. Re:I'll believe it when I see it.... by Talderas · · Score: 2

      The radiation therapy for the blood cancer kills off most of the marrow cells but not all of them. The remaining living cells could still harbor the HIV virus. They were unsure if the HIV was eradicated because the donation occurred and the donor's T-cells attacked the hosts marrow eradicating hiding places for HIV or if it was because the donor's T-Cell were mutated in a way that made them resistant to HIV. The radiation played a part but undoubtedly the transplant was the reason for it.

      While it is a treatment that has cured someone of HIV. I don't personally consider it a cure because you're just removing the diseased region. For comparison, if I had skin cancer on my left forearm I'm not "cured" of it if I amputate my left arm.

      It's great that this guy is cured of HIV but they need to find out if it was a mutation in the donor or the donation itself and even then it's not a cure as long as it's reliant on donors because the number of people that can be cured is going to be smaller than the total pool of HIV infected individuals. We need to be able to synthesize the cure so that it can be distributed to most of the victims.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    8. Re:I'll believe it when I see it.... by Alomex · · Score: 1

      There are two working definition for curing AIDS. One is the virus is gone, the second is you will die of something else. Both are valid and reasonable. We have cured AIDS according to the second one, but not yet the first one.

    9. Re:I'll believe it when I see it.... by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      Too often these promising studies generate all kinds of hype

      This is largely the fault of institutional PR offices - university press releases are notorious for inflating the importance of even the most minor discovery, and their take is what gets reported. (Which isn't to say that scientists aren't complicit, but most of us have sufficient self-awareness to cringe when we read these articles.)

    10. Re:I'll believe it when I see it.... by Talderas · · Score: 1

      I personally only consider the first one a cure. Under the second definition you are still negatively impacted by the disease which is, to me, a perversion of the term cure. You may not be at risk of death or injury from the disease but your life is still negatively impacted by the disease by requiring you to upkeep treatment in order to avoid the death or injury.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    11. Re:I'll believe it when I see it.... by CauseBy · · Score: 1

      We did cure AIDS. With treatment, nobody today suffers from AIDS. They remain HIV positive with very low viral load and no symptoms.

      That is also the goal state for cancers, and we have successfully met the goal with some cancers; others are more difficult.

    12. Re:I'll believe it when I see it.... by CauseBy · · Score: 1

      You can consider whatever you want but the world won't and shouldn't expend the resources to meet your threshold when the other threshold is the only one that matters.

      "Take this pill, you'll never experience side effects or symptoms."
      "But... I still have the virus! I'm not cured!"
      "I don't care. Take or leave the pill, whatever, it's the same to me."
      "Uh...! okay."

    13. Re:I'll believe it when I see it.... by burbilog · · Score: 1

      I personally only consider the first one a cure. Under the second definition you are still negatively impacted by the disease which is, to me, a perversion of the term cure. You may not be at risk of death or injury from the disease but your life is still negatively impacted by the disease by requiring you to upkeep treatment in order to avoid the death or injury.

      I personally consider both as cure because I have incurable problem: asthma.

      That "negative impact" is much better than no treatment at all. I have an asthma and always had since 1979. I was disabled person in USSR, because they had no real drugs to deal with asthma. Later, when USSR dissolved I was able to get some first-aid inhalers (like Berotek), but these did not work well, sometimes they stopped working and I had to call emergency (in 1995 that happened 3 times during the year) and doctors were unable do anything to stop asthma attack. Later in 1999 I learned about hormone-based inhalers and I use them for more than 15 years now.

      Now look, in 2000 I was able to dance ballroom dances and do other sports after I got normal treatment. Yes, I have to use inhaler every day. So what? Do you see the difference between healthy life and vegetable-like life inside your room only (in 1995 I was unable to work because of smokers around bus stops, and no, there were no cars at that time). For me, it IS a REAL cure and I don't give a fuck if I have to use them every day, that's about 10 seconds of my life per day.

  2. obligatory xkcd by juanfgs · · Score: 5, Informative
  3. Rundown by fey000 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    While the title is misleading click-bait, there is potential to this discovery. Here's a rundown:

    We already knew that miRNA (which is a regulator/anti-virus peptide working on DNA) was silencing tumour-suppressing genes, this is very old stuff.
    We already knew that re-introducing tumour suppressing proteins into cells that lack them would remove the carcinogenic behaviour.
    We did not know that adhesive proteins (a part of the external cell stuff that is commonly called Extra-Cellular Matrix (ECM)) regulated miRNA in proximal cells. This is very interesting stuff, and leads to several intriguing possibilities. What if you flood a cancer site with adhesive proteins attached to a membrane connecting peptide? Will that upregulate tumour-suppressing proteins? What happens when you do this to healthy cells? If the response in heathy cells is low, this could be a universal "low-risk, unknown reward" medication for multiple cancer types, something cancer treatment has long lacked (all non-crazy-person treatments are dangerous to healthy tissue now).

    So, while not the panacea the title suggests, it's certainly an intriguing discovery.

    1. Re: Rundown by ememisya · · Score: 1

      So we're not at the apply this vial of harvested-tears-of-Chuck-Norris-on-the-affected-area stage for cancer yet?

    2. Re:Rundown by Pseudonymous+Powers · · Score: 1

      What happens when you do this to healthy cells?

      That's the pertinent question, all right. I know it's not the researchers' fault, but I can't help wishing that they'd tried injecting this into a few of those born-with-cancer lab rats before telling us about it, so we don't get all excited about it if it turns out to kill the patient in addition to the cancer. How much time and money would that have cost them, really?

      I know, I know, that's not how science works. But we already know about a lot of things that can kill cancer cells if they're already in a Petri dish. Just off the top of my head: an oven; bleach; a hammer.

  4. Inevitable by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

    "It took a few years," the wise one continued, "but once they polished a cure up, the clamor for smoking in public places built gloriously until a few years later, when those pollies removed the laws. They knew what side their bread was buttered on, which was the only reason they changed it in the first place."

    "What a bizarre little period that was," we stated.

    "Yes. It was."

    "What did the fussbudgettry turn their attentions to, then?"

    "Oh, I don't know. Anti 3D printed sex slave robots or something. They didn't have mouths genetically engineered growing outta their taints to give the what-for to their own junk, as guaranted by International Rights today, back in those days."

    "Craaaaazy!"

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:Inevitable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Although this post is probably the dumbest nonsensical one I have read here lately, I would point out that cancer is only one of the downsides of smoking. The other issue is that it damages your lungs irrevocably and reduces your ability to breathe normally. It also adds to heart disease. But only fussbudgets care about such things.

  5. this comes as no surprise. by nimbius · · Score: 3, Funny

    As a researcher whos grant money is majority funded by federal dollars, I can assure you we face much more stringent requirements in the lab than the private sector. At the end of the day we're in charge of switching off lights, computers, machinery--basically everything. For about 10 years now our benefactors have decided thats not enough, and have insisted we start switching off things like the mitochondria lest it waste energy. Switching off things like centrifugal force, strong and weak forces, and even electromagnetism (where applicable) has saved many countless grant dollars. So when we're researching cancer, its only logical we'd switch that off at the end of the day as well.

    In fact, ill let you in on a little secret. The heat death of the universe is billions of years away not because of some natural phenomenon, but because the research into the expansion of the universe is constrained by a mandate to make sure we put up all the timespace in the locked cabinet near doris' office at the end of the day.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:this comes as no surprise. by Stenchwarrior · · Score: 1

      In response to your sig: I go to bed at like 8:00 am...by your rationalization I'm a GREAT person.

      --
      Loading...
  6. O great! by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    Now we're all gonna die from Alzheimer's!

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  7. When we asked about something liike this.... by mark-t · · Score: 1

    ... last year, after my wife had thankfully survived breast cancer, my wife's oncologist told us rather plainly that barring of some kind of unprecedented breakthrough, which he apparently did not consider to be likely anytime soon, it was not going to be possible. He suggested that the best anyone can realistically hope for is earlier detection, to the point that it may be more easily treatable, even potentially entirely noninvasively, but basically he suggested that hoping for any kind of actual cure in the future, or "turning off" cancer somehow was not being realistic.

    1. Re:When we asked about something liike this.... by Gilgaron · · Score: 2

      He's probably right... but with increasingly benign treatments and early detection, it could be possible to reduce cancer to a significant inconvenience. The difficulty in getting rid of every cell of it is why you can't ever be truly sure it is gone forever, but if treating it can be mundane from the patient's standpoint and without the harmful effects of current treatment that'd be a win.

    2. Re:When we asked about something liike this.... by captjc · · Score: 1

      Correct. You can't cure cancer for the same reason you can't cure the Common Cold. Because there is no "Common Cold" just as there is no "Cancer". What you have is dozens or hundreds of different things that cause very similar symptoms that get grouped together to be named "Cancer" just as there are hundreds of different viruses that can give you cold-like symptoms.

      Cancer itself can be caused by genetic predisposition, viral infections, chemical exposure, radiation, excess exposure to the sun, or whathaveyou. Now, If you can treat what is common to all or most of them, you might be able to reduce it little more than a nuisance that is curable in 80-90% of cases instead of the generally survivable ordeal that it is now. However, it will not be eradicated anytime in the near future.

      --
      Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
  8. Wrong discipline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Microprocessors and regular expression, you sure this is biotech?

  9. Grammar by OakDragon · · Score: 2

    "WE Scientists Successfully 'Switch Off' Cancer Cells" ... C'mon, Slashdot editors!

  10. Re:cure of the day by Captain+Sarcastic · · Score: 1

    "This time for sure! Nothin' up my sleeve..." - Bullwinkle J. Moose

    --
    Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker