Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Gut Microbes Combine To Cause Colon Cancer, Study Suggests (nytimes.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the two-is-better-than-one dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The New York Times (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source): Two types of bacteria commonly found in the gut work together to fuel the growth of colon tumors, researchers reported on Thursday. Their study, published in the journal Science, describes what may be a hidden cause of colon cancer, the third most common cancer in the United States. The research also adds to growing evidence that gut bacteria modify the body's immune system in unexpected and sometimes deadly ways. The findings suggest that certain preventive strategies may be effective in the future, like looking for the bacteria in the colons of people getting colonoscopies. If the microbes are present, the patients might warrant more frequent screening; eventually people at high risk for colon cancer may be vaccinated against at least one of the bacterial strains.

Two types of bacteria, Bacteroides fragilis and a strain of E. coli, can pierce a mucus shield that lines the colon and normally blocks invaders from entering, the researchers found. Once past the protective layer, the bacteria grow into a long, thin film, covering the intestinal lining with colonies of the microbes. E. coli then releases a toxin that damages DNA of colon cells, while B. fragilis produces another poison that both damages DNA and inflames the cells. Together they enhance the growth of tumors. Not everyone carries the two types of bacteria in their colon. Those who do seem to pick up microbes in childhood, where they simply become part of the diverse mass of bacteria in the intestinal tract -- the so-called microbiome.

43 comments

  1. Everything causes cancer by pablo_max · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Seriously, it seems like everything we see and do, eat and drink or come into contact is both linked to causing and preventing cancer. Heck, every other week they say that any amount of red wine causes cancer, then the following week, "a glass a day keeps the cancer away". It is likely they have no fucking idea what causes or prevents cancer.

    On a side note... those gut critters are super important. Many years ago during my military service, I had gotten a pretty strong bug while in the middle east. To remedy this, the military doc gave me very powerful antibiotics. It did kill the bug, but it also destroyed my digestive system. Also these years later there are many foods, including all dairy products which I am no longer able to eat.
    Military docs are the best!

    1. Re:Everything causes cancer by Hal_Porter · · Score: 3, Funny

      Experiments show that everything causes cancer in *rats*. But that's because rats are WEAK. Humanity STRONG!

      [puffs on cigar and snorts a line of asbestos]

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    2. Re:Everything causes cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heck, every other week

      Ahh yes, here is the problem. Shitty science reporting. You get so-called "science reporters" who instead of doing real work, just scan various research journals for the word cancer. They paraphrase the summary of the research paper and put a click bait headline on it.

      What you never here about is said study that was reported two months ago ends up being completely refuted by anyone else in that particular field of research with a clue.

      So take these articles with a grain of salt(or not, it might cause cancer too).

    3. Re:Everything causes cancer by Alalalalalalalalalal · · Score: 1

      Cigar and asbestos are tools of INFIDELITY. So forth will you be punished for your wicked deeds.

    4. Re:Everything causes cancer by rmdingler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is a poorly understood symbiotic relationship between humans and the microorganisms that share space within us.

      Two people with similar metabolisms and nearly identical diets: One is skinny as a rail, and one spends his life trying to keep the weight off or down, or managed... Fecal transplantation at Johns Hopkins.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    5. Re: Everything causes cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intolerance to milk is a common side effect of aging

    6. Re:Everything causes cancer by kackle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is likely they have no fucking idea what causes or prevents cancer.

      Keep in mind that the issue is infinitely complex. Considering all the interactions of all the possible human cells and bacteria, viruses, etc., it wouldn't surprise me if they discovered some day that some "germs" damage DNA in certain human cells, but protect the DNA of others!

    7. Re:Everything causes cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you know what "infinitely" means.

    8. Re: Everything causes cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "common" like in 40% cmmon, that's not common at all. Humanity is fucked up, has been fucking up its own habitat, it's health. I can't eat many foods, not just diary, and all thanks to fucked up food, pesticides, preservatives, antibiotics, and fucked up FCC medicine. Bloating, cramps and gas - that's now how they want you to live by, slaves.

    9. Re:Everything causes cancer by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Everything apart from idleness, overeating, junk food, sugar, smoking, guns, ...

      --
      Requiem for the American Dream
    10. Re:Everything causes cancer by BadDreamer · · Score: 2

      This procedure has helped a lot of people which have the same symptoms you explain from antibiotic treatment. It's low risk, with no known side effects over hundreds of years of use, and has a high success ratio. These particular sites advertise it to combat overpopulation of a specific nasty bacteria, but it works equally well in cases of damaged intestinal bacteria ecosystem.

      I recommend taking a look, and talking to your physician. Your digestive problems can probably be fixed.

      https://www.openbiome.org/abou...

      http://thefecaltransplantfound...

    11. Re:Everything causes cancer by easyTree · · Score: 1

      It's almost as if news is released as advertising. The health professionals want to drive people to medical care; the vintners want to drive people to wine.

      --
      Requiem for the American Dream
    12. Re: Everything causes cancer by easyTree · · Score: 1

      How else do you propose that the population problem is addressed. If I were in charge of this, Is be quite concerned and maybe open to anything which only foil-headwear-officionados would notice results in death.

      --
      Requiem for the American Dream
    13. Re: Everything causes cancer by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Let me paraphrase,... I would not put myself in such a position.

      --
      Requiem for the American Dream
    14. Re: Everything causes cancer by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Well there's always the (unidentified insane poor hating politiican) solution
      Keep them out of work with prison sentences for minor infractions, then remove all health-education-welfare and Housing
      Then they will just die off
      Remember the line? "Mom taught me not to feed the strays, they'll just breed"

    15. Re:Everything causes cancer by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      Don't confuse basic research with media desperate to push more stories. I don't think any researcher has said one glass a day of wine will keep cancer away. If you read it in a newspaper instead of a journal, then treat it with healthy suspicion. If you heard it from a friend, then treat it with distrust. If you heard it on Goop, then what the hell were you doing there?

    16. Re:Everything causes cancer by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      I reverse snorted a line of coca cola when I read the asbestos line

    17. Re:Everything causes cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw a study saying pre and pro biotics can detrimental to your health. It was briefly mentioned that people with leaky gut or other similar medical issues should be careful. But the bulk of the study was worded as if the average person needs to worry. Seems that something that is positively beneficial for any normal healthy person, can sometimes be unhealthy to those who are not healthy or have some medical condition.

    18. Re: Everything causes cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've heard good results about people who have been lactose intolerant their entire non-infant life, then git rid of it by consuming fermented dairy products for several weeks. On the surface of it, sounds like some people are not fundamentally intolerant, they just don't have the right gut flora. Not studies, but some doctors claim they give these recommendations to their patients with a high rate of success. Anecdotes != conclusive data

    19. Re:Everything causes cancer by erapert · · Score: 1

      I don't think you know what "hyperbole" means.

  2. Re:DOWJONDESINDUSTRIALINDEX MINUS 666 SATAN RISING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But this IS Trump's market so what would you expected!

    Dante has described how many rings?

    Trump can start at the outer, and move to the inner. Everyone in the WH follows. EV.RY.1

    Trump should already be in the fourth ring of the ninth circle, frozen in a block of ice.

  3. What WILL Happen by Shogun37 · · Score: 2

    "WE detected this bacteria in you stool sample. Your insurance company dropped you. The test is $30,000. Add four more zeros for a cure that probably won't work." Isn't science AMAZING?

    1. Re:What WILL Happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are describing a social system that is "amazing". Science gives you the tools, if you hand those tools to profit-driven psychopaths, that's not the tool's fault.

    2. Re:What WILL Happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Pretty much this. Most of our advancements in medicine are screwed up by for-profit insurance companies. We all have to appear to be perfect in every way these days even when that perfection is an absolute lie. You can't outright lie to an insurance company, but what you can do is not get tested for things that you know are going to be risks. That way there's no record of it. I'm trying to figure out how this strategy, while rational from a market perspective, actually helps anybody. It's time we figure out that the motivations of a capitalist market are incompatible with the motivations of people seeking to be healthy and doctors seeking to keep them that way.

      No, this isn't a socialist post: it's simply a recognition, foreign to way too many, that health care does not obey the fundamental tenets of a free market--the very first of which is that nobody is compelled to buy or sell. There are certain health conditions you damned well are compelled to buy services and products to deal with. Nobody who says they want to fix the system ever seems to want to deal with that. Socialists don't know how to control costs, and capitalists don't want to control costs. Meanwhile, people suffer either way.

    3. Re:What WILL Happen by uncqual · · Score: 3, Informative

      Insurance companies in the US now can't refuse to issue or charge more based on pre-existing conditions. As well, they must, in general, pay out 80% of the premiums they collect in claims and, if they pay out less than 80%, must rebate the difference to their policy holders. This leaves up to 20% of premiums for administrative costs (claims processing and validation, customer service, statements, payment processing, leases, utilities, facilities), marketing (including negotiating with providers) and sales, and profit.

      It's pretty hard to blame insurance companies for much since the imposition of the PPACA and, at most, you can only blame them for LESS than 20% of the cost. Remember that Medicare and Medicaid which have virtually no marketing costs and no profit motive and have the power of government to coerce private providers to accept their terms unilaterally still have administrative costs. Although proponents of Medicare sometimes assert that its overhead is only 2% vs. private insurers 15-20%, that analysis has some serious flaws.

      Also, many (perhaps most -- although the more sophisticated providers have learned how to game the Medicare system to maximize payments -- sometimes with ridiculously inefficient tricks) medical providers can't survive on Medicare, let alone Medicaid, payments alone which is why many practices limit in some way the number of such patients they accept. What this means is that some percentage of private insurance money is subsidizing Medicare and Medicaid.

      For example, there is one procedure that most healthy people will have once a year that my provider bills $150 for, my insurance knocks it down to a negotiated rate of $79 and Medicare either pays nothing for (claiming it is bundled with other related services) or about $15 (if it truly is provided in an "unbundled" situation). The actual cost to the provider is almost certainly well below the $79 and above the $15 price points.

      Another example is that experienced by someone I know who transitioned to Medicare from employer insurance. On employer insurance, they went in for some routine office visits for a particular (non life threatening and more just annoying) medical condition and saw the doctor, they talked, the doctor did an exam and the visit was over and the provider got something like $150 or so negotiated rate from the insurer. Immediately upon transitioning to Medicare, the entire experience changed -- the doctor still saw the patient but for a bit less time, but then a lower skilled person (I don't think they were even a PA) spent much longer with the patient. The doctor only collected about $30 for the visit, but the whole package ended up through some clever billing, ended up costing Medicare about $150 still but was much less efficient for all involved.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
  4. Just face it.... by MerlTurkin · · Score: 1

    ...we're all f**ked.

  5. Cancer is not just a single disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for a single organ, there can more than one type of cancer, each with different causes. Blood and skin are best examples, they can be affected by more than one type of cancer.

    The study suggestion may be very plausible if you look at the above fact

  6. Every cell in the body is cancerous, by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    All the cells in all the multicellular organisms are cancerous.

    For asexually reproducing organisms, there is nothing called cancer. The cells keep mutating and dividing. So what is cancer for them?

    The non germ line cells "know" they will die with the body they are living in. They will obey the "code", they will not undergo uncontrolled cell growth, they will divide on command, and die on command. The command is delivered by the collective signalling of all other cells in the body.

    If the body cells "forget" they are part of a multicellular body non germ line cell and they should die on command or forget the secret handshake between all other cells in the body that makes them obey these commands, they go back to single cell way of life. Rest of the body is their environment, nutrient supplier and these cells undergo uncontrolled division forming tumors etc.

    All cells will forget the secret handshake eventually, if the body lives long enough. Most bodies die before the cells that have rebelled and declared independence to grow big enough to cause problems. Each cell type creates its own type of cancer. Each cell type has multiple ways to forget the secret handshake.

    So The War on Cancer is unwinnable.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Every cell in the body is cancerous, by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that cancer is the oppressed proletariat of the non germ cells rebelling against the tyranny of the 1% of germ cells?

      Power to the people!

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    2. Re:Every cell in the body is cancerous, by backslashdot · · Score: 1

      First off, not all cells replicate. Second, it's ridiculous to state the war on cancer is unwinnable. Cancer gets cured all the time. Cancer in stage I is curable 95% of the time. Cancer in stage 4 is also curable though that is cancer dependent on the type and only in 5% of cases currently. Curing cancer is a matter of, cell by cell:

      1. Detecting that a cell is in a cancer state: This step is not impossible. All cancer cells have mutated versions of various genes, a normal cell has hundreds less mutations than a cancer cell. The DNA in a cancer cell bears a large number of mutations. Due to the fact that mutant versions of proteins are made by cancer cells, there are usually (actually probably always) surface markers indicating that a cell is cancerous. The immune system might have been made blind to it, but the markers are there. Once you get a sample of a tumor (biopsy), you can read the DNA and proteins in it. Then you can make molecules that can bind to DNA and detect a mutation or bind to the proteins on its surface directly. A normal cell has genes activated that commit suicide if something in the cell breaks, that is called apoptosis. Cancer cells have to break or those. All cancer cells have activated or de-activated genes that allow replication, error checking, cell suicide, and immune evasion. Can a cancer cell exist without all of those features? Maybe, but they MUST have most of them.

      2. Neutralizing the cancer cell: The current fashionable trend is that this can be done by awakening the immune system to the surface markers on the tumor. The immune system consists a whole range of different types of immune cells that can be brought into the fight. You can get a list of surface markers, or the more contextually accurate term is "neoantigens" by sequencing the tumor cells. Once you have that list, you can retarget the immune system or your own molecules to target them. Another approach is blocking the signal cancer cells send to the immune system to call them off. A third approach is to have a viral capsid that encloses a nano-robot that can activate if, and only DNA sequence is in the cell. The hardest part of that approach is making an efficient and capsid or enclosure that can penetrate into cells. To detect and destroy based on the existence of mutant DNA or protein is trivial if you can get large cargo to infiltrate the cell -- oh and since they carry a huge metabolic burden all cancer cells have to release and allow in cargo.

      TL;DR: All cancer cells have common features that can be targeted. The war is not unwinnable, there are many many paths to winning.

    3. Re:Every cell in the body is cancerous, by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      There's also another element to keep in mind: cancer doesn't spread between individuals. That means cancer cannot evolve counters to our treatments beyond the singular individual being treated: every new treatment we find will be equally likely to work now as in a hundred years. This makes cancer a lot more manageable than bacteria, which can develop immunity to antibiotics.

      Essentially, once we have a type of cancer beaten, it should remain beaten. Every step we take, every battle we win, is a step towards our victory against cancer.

    4. Re: Every cell in the body is cancerous, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > cancer doesn't spread between individuals.

      How did it spread among tazmanian devils?

      How about HPV?

      Dumb shit

  7. In America, gut bacteria eats you by transporter_ii · · Score: 4, Informative

    Hey guys, if you don't get enough fiber, your microbes can turn on you:

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...

    And if you eat the typical American diet, you ain't getting much fiber. Also, for you paleo eaters, actual paleolithic eaters got a pile of fiber every day.

    Recommended reading for your microbes eating you: Undoctored, by Dr. William Davis.

    --
    Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
    1. Re:In America, gut bacteria eats you by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Doctor's promote more fiber too, don't let your anti doctor rant get in the way of logic.

  8. FAP , Familial Adenomatous Polyposis by Guppy · · Score: 3, Informative

    When reading this article please keep in mind that the study applies to persons with a particular genetic disease called Familial Adenomatous Polyposis (or FAP, huhuhu). Applicability to the general population is uncertain, though the biological mechanism is fascinating.

  9. Might also cause IBS by Bruha · · Score: 2

    They might have stumbled on what causes IBS also. If a single strain is causing inflammation the bodyâ(TM)s reaction might be flush it out.

  10. War isn't winnable, but holding actions work by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 2

    You say the war on cancer isn't winnable, and there's some merit to the claim.

    However, we have learned to delay and delay and delay the victory of cancer, often until something else kills us first. That may not be "winning", strictly speaking, but if I die of something else and have a good quality of life it makes no practical difference to me.

    https://www.cancer.org/latest-...

    We've also learned how to prevent a lot of cases of cancer. I don't smoke, I eat high fiber, avoid overindulging in processed meat, I don't binge drink, I get regular exercise, keep my weight reasonable, and I protect my skin from too much sun. All of these reduce my risk of cancer by a good deal. Not to zero, but all these actions reduce my odds of getting cancer. Again, not "winning the war" but considerable progress.

    --PM

  11. Proposition 65 by Templer421 · · Score: 0

    California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986...Causes Cancer.

    1. Re:Proposition 65 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986...Causes Cancer.

      Schizophrenic or appalling neo-nazi nutjob?

      Doubt anyone gives much of a toss.

  12. Cancer != simply division by DrYak · · Score: 2

    All the cells in all the multicellular organisms are cancerous.

    For asexually reproducing organisms, there is nothing called cancer. The cells keep mutating and dividing. So what is cancer for them?

    Nope. Not at all. Cancer is not simply cell division.
    (Though there are some cell that do indeed not divide (e.g.: neuron, for obvious practical reasons) and whose population is repleted by progenitor cells (in that case, that would be neuroblast ; mostly happening in the amydalia region of the brain), there are other cell population were dividing cells are pretty much the norm (e.g.: cardiomyocytes in the heart do divide to replenish the population).)

    Cancer is about complete uncontrolled cell divsion. Not only *unchecked* but utterly beyond any control or even coherent organisation.

    Obligatory /. car metaphore:
    - if cells dividing are cars driving forward
    - then cancerous cells are cars witl the pedal's mechanism completely stuck, while in full throttle position. With all consequence that entail with that (including colliding everywhere)

    A fully cancerous cell (once it has moved beyond hyperplasia toward full blown cancer ), will divide completely chaotically, even before it's actually ready to divide. It won't simply divide even when unneeded/unrequired by the body (that's "hyperplasia" and that's what you're thinking with your "revolution against the oppressor" logic)
    It will divide even when it doesn't make any sense :
    - Before having checked that the duplicated genetic material is correct (cancerous cells accumulate mutation at an alarming rate. On a global scale they are terribly inefficient : lots of them die just because they've completely destroyed their DNA. It's just that, on scale of division speed happening in a tumor, there are still a few that miraculously manage to be still semi functionnal enough to keep reproducing. It's survival of the fittest, but with the production of unfits turned up to eleven).
    - Before even having correctly duplicated its genetic material (chromosomic aberration are abundant in a tumor, leading to lots of dysfunctional cell)
    - Before even having accumulated enough resources to be functional. That's why you don't see cancer in single-cell organism : a cancerous cell isn't even able to function anymore, and require an organism on which to parasytically to rely in order to sustain. (A cancerous amoeba would be unable to eat and will die after a couple of divisions - cancerous cell are defined by their loss of function). (Just like the metaphorical car would run out of fuel pretty fast. From that point of view a cancer is closer to a trolley-bus : able to tap into the city's resources (electric grid) to still drive. And just like the cancer cell, a lot of the trolley bus would derail their electrical feed and die of)

    A cancerous cell isn't simply "reverting to a pre-multicellular state". A cancerous cell is going batshit insane about division in a way that could not be survivable outside a multicellular organism.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  13. Relation to heliobacter pylori? by mmdurrant · · Score: 1

    H. pylori is associated with increased risk of pancreatic cancer... I wonder if it may be related? Pure speculation on my part but something that seems worth investigating.

    --
    I see my shadow changing, stretching up and over me...