Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scientists Selectively Trigger Suicide In Cancer Cells (scitechdaily.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the self-destructing-tumors dept.

Long-time Slashdot reader Baron_Yam quotes SciTechDaily: A team of researchers at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine reveals the first compound that directly makes cancer cells commit suicide while sparing healthy cells. The new treatment approach was directed against acute myeloid leukemia (AML) cells but may also have potential for attacking other types of cancers.... AML accounts for nearly one-third of all new leukemia cases and kills more than 10,000 Americans each year. The survival rate for patients has remained at about 30 percent for several decades, so better treatments are urgently needed.
The team's computer screened a million compounds to determine the 500 most likely to bind to the "executioner protein" in cells. They then synthesized them all in their lab and evaluated their effectiveness.

47 comments

  1. Hopefully no side effects... by rgbatduke · · Score: 1

    ... otherwise, good news.

    --
    Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    1. Re:Hopefully no side effects... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      Cancer cells were put in a room with Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, then they promptly committed suicide.

    2. Re: Hopefully no side effects... by Wycliffe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      With a 1/3 death rate, some side effects would likely be acceptable. That being said, the reason chemo patients lose their hair is because chemo kills all fast growing cells. Viagra also affects cells in other areas like the eyes. Triggering cell death could get really bad in a hurry if it unintentionally killed all of a class of cell in the body vital to survival.

    3. Re: Hopefully no side effects... by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      OK, the way I read "survival rate for patients has remained at about 30 percent" is that 7 out of 10 patients die...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    4. Re: Hopefully no side effects... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Yup. You read that right.

      Although we all die sooner or later. The only question is how long we can put off our date with the reaper.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    5. Re:Hopefully no side effects... by Baron_Yam · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If I read the article correctly, this compound can only trigger cell death in a cell already primed to die - the problem with cancer cells being they get primed but resist reception of the final 'go' signal. It really shouldn't kill any cells that aren't going to off themselves shortly anyway.

      Then again, IANA oncology researcher.

    6. Re:Hopefully no side effects... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      If the side effects are "50% chance of death," it could still be better than the treatment options we have now.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re: Hopefully no side effects... by slashrio · · Score: 1

      How about science finds the cause and we start eliminating it?

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    8. Re:Hopefully no side effects... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Considering the side effects of the current treatment and its success rates, I'd say the side effects of this can be rather horrible before it's no longer a suitable replacement...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:Hopefully no side effects... by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      This is correct, this is describing induced apoptosis. It's probably the best way to kill cancer cells while leaving healthy cells alone. Better still, apoptosis is controlled cell death, so they die 'cleanly' versus necrosis when the cells just fall apart.

    10. Re:Hopefully no side effects... by rgbatduke · · Score: 1

      I should have been clearer (but I was in a hurry to win the coveted first-post award:-). Hopefully:

      a) No side effects, not because it might not be worth it even with side effects up to a direct mortality rate lower than the disease it cures, but because hey, side effects generally suck. If I'm going to expend valuable "hope", I might as well hope to get a real live pony as to get a tiny stuffed unicorn. (OK, not the best metaphor -- I really don't want a real live pony because I'm not that fond of horses and because of "side effects" on my yard, but you get what I mean). And sure, the side effects of making one immortal, restoring lost youth, functioning like permanent viagra (for either sex), causing lost hair to regrow, or making one devastatingly witty at parties all might be desirable, but what are the odds even with a dollop of "hope" thrown in? They are less likely than the pony.

      b) And (omitted) one hope that this actually WORKS when one takes it out of the real of in vitro, through animal models, and into humans. In vitro we've cured lots and lots of cancer many time. In mice -- well damn, all I can say is that we could easily treble the life span of a typical mouse just by injecting them with this and that and adding a pinch of special mouse mix to their food supply (if you can believe the literature). But humans are not just cells, and we are not mice. Drugs that work in mice (or whose possibly fatal side effects don't show up in the lifetime of a typical mouse) don't always work in humans.

      So what I should have said is "I hope it survives human trials and becomes a viable therapy that significantly reduces human mortality and morbidity from the disease because many therapies that make it to this stage do not." Including many "magic bullet" therapies (in vitro). Antibiotics were and still are largely a magic bullet therapy if you have any of a wide spectrum of infections and no allergies. Outside of that, magic bullet therapies -- take a dose of this and you are cured -- are comparatively rare, and we STILL have little that we can do for most viruses or cancers but stand by and watch them take their course (while providing metabolic support and controlling fevers etc that are the proximate cause of death), or poison the human ALMOST to death in the hope that the more rapidly dividing cancer cells die first. And of course these less than magic bullet therapies often fail.

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    11. Re: Hopefully no side effects... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By your logic, we should have completely eliminated influenza long ago.

  2. Suicidal cells by nospam007 · · Score: 1, Troll

    Call the helpline.

  3. First they came for the cancer cells by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    eom

  4. so much research, so little real benefits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    ... maybe less pay without real practical results??

    1. Re:so much research, so little real benefits by michelcolman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, I must admit that whenever I read articles like that, I'm like "they cured cancer again?". Oh, and let me guess, it also charges you up in 5 minutes and triples your range?

      We've made a little progress over the decades, but nowhere near what you'd expect from all the articles about revolutionary new treatments.

    2. Re:so much research, so little real benefits by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      It's almost like it's a non-trivial problem that exists in many distinct forms for every tissue present in the human body.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    3. Re:so much research, so little real benefits by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      We've made a little progress over the decades, but nowhere near what you'd expect from all the articles about revolutionary new treatments.

      Breast cancer survival rates have tripled. Rates for some other cancers have improved even more.

      There is much work to be done, but many "revolutionary new treatments" are indeed revolutionary. Other cancers are succumbing to steady incremental progress.

    4. Re:so much research, so little real benefits by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      This article is about one particular kind of cancer.
      That kind of cancer is called leukemia.

      And that particular kind of cancer has about 16 different variations which basically only share one part in the name: leukemia.

      The improvement is for exactly one kind of leukemia.

      If you dismiss the huge advances mankind made in cancer treatment during the last 30 or 50 years: then you are extremely uninformed.

      Basically every ex cancer patient I know would have died 20 or 30 years ago ... miserably. Now they live ... some with no signs at all, some with an occasional chemo therapy every 3 years.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    5. Re:so much research, so little real benefits by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      P.S. and don't forget that stuff like lung cancer comes mainly from smoking, basically *all* cancers come mostly from smoking or other environmental poisons.
      You can improve treatment as much as you want, but still people go out of their room in the hospital and continue to smoke: while under treatment.
      Thee is only one cure for that: magic. I guess we are just another 10 years away from that.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    6. Re:so much research, so little real benefits by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      True enough. But I suspect that improvements in breast cancer survival are mostly due to better early detection. The deadliest cancers are those that escape detection until it's too late. Either you catch it in an early stage where you can remove a tumor and be done with it - or you eventually die, with rare exceptions, I guess. One of these days, one of these revolutionary approaches will yield a treatment that can be administered at rates that make a dent in survival. And at 65, with both parents lost to cancer, I sure hope it's soon...

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    7. Re:so much research, so little real benefits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've made a little progress over the decades, but nowhere near what you'd expect from all the articles about revolutionary new treatments.

      Breast cancer survival rates have tripled. Rates for some other cancers have improved even more.

      There is much work to be done, but many "revolutionary new treatments" are indeed revolutionary. Other cancers are succumbing to steady incremental progress.

      sure, ok, however, look at how many companies and researches are living the good life .... do you really think all those research dollars are well spent??

    8. Re:so much research, so little real benefits by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      But I suspect that improvements in breast cancer survival are mostly due to better early detection.

      Early detection works better because mammograms have improved in both cost and accuracy, especially at distinguishing between malignant tumors and benign growths. Why have mammograms and other diagnostic tools improved? Answer: research.

    9. Re:so much research, so little real benefits by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      ... maybe less pay without real practical results??

      Life-saving technologies are for the rich, not for the plebeians. Just think, if you started saving people with runaway birthrates, so little to contribute they have to be employed doing menial tasks to prevent from rioting and looting, and generally incompetent, what happens next? We're already well on our way to Idiocracy, we don't need to make them live/reproduce longer - we need to focus on extending the lives of nerds so the normal population can be replaced over time.

    10. Re:so much research, so little real benefits by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      many companies and researches are living the good life ....

      That is a ridiculous argument. Anyone smart and innovative enough to contribute to oncology research is going to be well paid in any profession. If we don't pay them well, they will go elsewhere.

      do you really think all those research dollars are well spent??

      I have a sister and aunt that are breast cancer survivors. My mom is a colon cancer survivor. I support spending more on cancer research.

      If you look at the overall cost of cancer to our nation, spending more to find cures and preventions is a total no-brainer.

      Other areas of medical research were a cost benefit shows that we should be spending WAY more: dementia and mental health. Dementia costs America more than $160B annually. Schizophrenia costs more than $100B. Yet we spend way way more running prisons to keep our mentally ill than we do on finding effective treatments.

    11. Re: so much research, so little real benefits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true

    12. Re:so much research, so little real benefits by Wulf2k · · Score: 1

      I support spending tons more on cancer research, and much less on pink ribbons.

    13. Re:so much research, so little real benefits by p4nther2004 · · Score: 1
      Nod. Smoking is a risk factor lung cancer - but it's possible to get lung cancer when you have never smoked.

      Leukemia is a different beast though. The risk factors for Leukemia are fairly weak (Familial, Radiation exposure, Smoking....)

    14. Re:so much research, so little real benefits by p4nther2004 · · Score: 1
      No offense...but while survival rates have improved, there are people still dying from Leukemia - even from this version of Leukemia.

      The point is that this is a different treatment than say concocting another chemo combo.

    15. Re:so much research, so little real benefits by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Of course they are still dying ... and that probably will never change.

      After all Leukemia e.g. is caused amoung other causes by Plutonium in the bone marrow.

      While you can treat the actual cancer, you hardly can find that small dust speck of Plutonium and remove it.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  5. Science is bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Trigger communist SJWs instead! Fix this mess Mr. President and MAGA!!

  6. Who funded the research? by darthsilun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Would it be grants from the U.S. Government by any chance? Kinda sounds like it.

    From http://www.einstein.yu.edu/new...:

    Funding for this research was provided by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), part of the National Institutes of Health (R01CA178394), and awards from the Sidney Kimmel Foundation for Cancer Research, the Gabrielle’s Angels Foundation for Cancer Research, and the Pershing Square Sohn Cancer Research Alliance. Partial support was also provided by the Albert Einstein Cancer Center, which is funded by the NCI.

    I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. The one where the protocol is patented and licensed to a private company that will charge obscene amounts of money for the medicine.

    Your tax dollars working hard for you.

    1. Re:Who funded the research? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about you take your political axe to grind and shove it up your ass?

    2. Re:Who funded the research? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Someone has to actually test the thing. That doesn't come cheap. Until governments start doing this on their own (including those socialist utopias), then individuals will have to risk large amounts of their money. They won't do that for free.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    3. Re:Who funded the research? by Bryansix · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's not the point. The point is the reason cancer medication is said to cost a lot is because of research and development. However in this case, public funds paid for the R&D and as such, the resultant product should no be patented; but it will be anyways.

    4. Re:Who funded the research? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, It's your ass I'm going to shove it up you whiny piece of shit. Then I'm going to twist it and pull it in and out. Then, because you don't have any insurance, you go to the ER and get fixed up on everyone else's nickel while you whine about how you suffered through eight years of Obama and being forced to buy insurance you don't need.

      Found the Nazi, Trump cocksucker in one.

    5. Re:Who funded the research? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The patent itself is not the problem.
      The question is a fair licensing schema.

      Actually, the government should patent it, and hand out licenses for 10% of turn over or something. That would beat the amount of taxes any company would pay by a magnitude.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    6. Re:Who funded the research? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you also want the government to own exclusive production rights to the medication as well?

      The intent of patents is to make the invention free after the patent expires. The abuse comes from continuations.

    7. Re:Who funded the research? by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      Govt backed research works kind of like venture capital, the government assumes no risk (or employees) beyond the cash itself and doles it out to promising proposals. This works pretty well, but you're right that the govt could ask for more in return than they generally do... but without the grant program we'd be left with just what VC would pay for, which would be baldness cures and boner pills. So we're still better off in that we have new cancer drugs, even if they end up expensive. One issues with some drugs is there is little economics of scale for a drug that only helps a subset of people with a specific cancer. You can't make it inexpensive to produce at those scales without impacting safety. It is very expensive to perform FDA compliant/regulated research or manufacturing. So, even if the govt retained the patent... who will make it? Would it actually end up cheaper without the IP? How much less would fighter jets costs if Boeing didn't retain the IP?

    8. Re:Who funded the research? by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      It should be patented. It should just be patented by the U.S. Government, and royalties paid by the companies who use the info to bring a product to market.

      I could even see some kind of special patent type for the government, maybe perpetual _until_ it pays for itself (including wages, etc.), then is free for all to use. (But being free to use would then maybe have some sort of price restriction.. No price restriction, you keep paying the government.) That way, the very expensive long term basic research absolutely has "payback", in that it has benefit for the public, but if it's successful, ends up being "free" via the patent payback.

  7. There's a new area of research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are forcing cancer cells to read creimer's ebooks, and the cells also commit suicide, but much quicker.

    The hardest part of this research is getting the mice to wear earplugs.

  8. I know how they did it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They transcribed the Koran into RNA and made the cells Jihad.

    1. Re:I know how they did it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1

    2. Re: I know how they did it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do idiots show up in every discussion these days.

      "I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it."

      - John Stuart Mill

  9. the other methos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I really prefer the other method of cultivating your cells in a lab and teach them how to fight the cancer, then use them in your body, that is more safe and makes you stronger, not suicidal. And that method is already been used around the world.

  10. Scientists Trigger Suicide In Cancer Cells by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

    ...and the big oops moment becomes the opening scene from Prometheus...

  11. I know a drug that does this already by da_Den_man · · Score: 1

    Cannabis does this already. Naturally. With little harm and few 'side effects'

    --
    You keep going until you die..."Me".