Slashdot Mirror
Method For Fooling Cancer Cells Into Fat Cells Can Stop Cancer's Spread (technologynetworks.com)
Researchers from the University of Basel in Switzerland have discovered that they can prevent the formation of metastases by fooling breast cancer cells into fat cells. The proof-of-concept study was published in the journal Cancer Cell. Technology Networks reports: Malignant cells can rapidly respond and adapt to changing microenvironmental conditions, by reactivating a cellular process called epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT), enabling them to alter their molecular properties and transdifferentiate into a different type of cell (cellular plasticity). Cancer cells can exploit EMT -- a process that is usually associated with the development of organs during embryogenesis -- in order to migrate away from the primary tumor and form secondary metastases. Cellular plasticity is linked to cancer survival, invasion, tumor heterogeneity and resistance to both chemo and targeted therapies. In addition, EMT and the inverse process termed mesenchymal-epithelial transition (MET) both play a role in a cancer cell's ability to metastasize.
Using mouse models of both murine and human breast cancer the team investigated whether they could therapeutically target cancer cells during the process of EMT -- whilst the cells are in a highly plastic state. When the mice were administered Rosiglitazone in combination with MEK inhibitors it provoked the transformation of the cancer cells into post-mitotic and functional adipocytes (fat cells). In addition, primary tumor growth was suppressed and metastasis was prevented. Since both drugs used in the preclinical study were FDA-approved the team are hopeful that it may be possible to translate this therapeutic approach to the clinic.
Using mouse models of both murine and human breast cancer the team investigated whether they could therapeutically target cancer cells during the process of EMT -- whilst the cells are in a highly plastic state. When the mice were administered Rosiglitazone in combination with MEK inhibitors it provoked the transformation of the cancer cells into post-mitotic and functional adipocytes (fat cells). In addition, primary tumor growth was suppressed and metastasis was prevented. Since both drugs used in the preclinical study were FDA-approved the team are hopeful that it may be possible to translate this therapeutic approach to the clinic.
That's my transmogrifying butt cancer.
English as a fifteenth language, or just the vocabulary of a screaming monkey?
I would be richer now than the cancer of Steve Jobs.
A wall will fix it. Stop the spread of Americans when the economy collapses.
I think they mean 'turning'.
Fascinating science in the actual article - really odd use of language in the article. 'Fooling' is kind of anthropomorphizing the cancer cells - they're changing based on mechanisms, they never really make decisions to be fooled on, and that's why the actual study doesn't really use the word.
Ryan Fenton
a variety of poisons on the 'menu', & now a way to survive stuff that we/our spawn aren't designed to have in us in the first place? what a story? not this one. just more deep voodoo & chicken feathers?
I would call it hacking. They are hacking the process started by the cancer cells. Just like digital hackers, biohackers can be good guys.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
Cancers that are turned into fat later
just as likely we'll grow the gossamer like wings?
Instead of runaway cancer, you get runaway obesity? Then you die of a massive coronary.
FAIL
Wall? Idea presentation. Stand-by. LEGO! Build Wall of LEGO. These LEGO are tough. Smooth preventing ascent of man. When caravan alters the wall are unbuilt and are built to destination of formed caravan swarm. Mexico labour are employed for cheap. Preserve western civilization at cost of LEGO addition mal cheap Mexico labour. Brilliant idea of heart attack fear of caravan invaders to meet great LEGO wall.
Because it's like asking for a drug that cures viruses. We develop drugs that help deal with specific viruses all the time, but there are a lot of viruses.
Improvements in cancer detection and treatment also seem to be relatively incremental. Something that killed 90% of patients a generation ago maybe kills 50% now, and maybe next year a treatment or diagnostic tool or screening program comes out that brings that down to 45%.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Fat-cancer rates explode.
In other news, obscenely fat people are now walking tanks with their tumor-armor.
Because "Long Term Treatment" makes more money for a Pharma company than a "One dose cure".
Nobody gives a flying fuck about some stupid fucking game that ZERO people have heard of. Also this is about bullshit that happened 10 years ago! Ten years! Holy shit, get over it.
Some of them do in fact cure cancer. There are many forms of cancer that would have been a death sentence 40 years ago that can be cured in many cases. Curing cancer in a single individual is really hard. Each cancer ends up being a bit different given that they're derived from the genome of their host.
However science reporting would leave you to believe that all of them will cure cancer immediately. That is what happens when you have lazy "science reporters" (aka people too stupid to make it through real science courses) gobbling up anything with the word "cancer" in journals.
Hollywood saw to that. And it's the law now: "Computer hacking" is criminal, even though the law doesn't say what "hacking" is. Since this "hacking" indubitably involves computers somehow, it must be "computer hacking" and therefore criminal. Don't go "but the law doesn't mean that" on me, you doofus. If the prosecutor feels like it, he can use it that way. That makes it bad law, but it is a law in force, and thus almost anything anyone would care to call "hacking" can get prosecuted.
You can thank the security s'kiddies for that. And hollywood.
It does not matter. I guess the theory is by just behaving naturally the problem goes away. If you remove the cells you risk damaging other cells. Kind of one of those hold your nose until the smell goes away kind of things?
Because getting permission to do human experimentation is hard
Nope, the rescission happened this month, january 2019, and if the little game can rescind, so can unhappy old linux programmers who don't like being ruled over by non-programmers as "thank you" for their decades of gratis work.
...You mean Trump Derangement Syndrome?
Cancer is part of your body that stops doing what it is supposed to do and goes off and does its own thing until problems ensue. As such, there will always be cancer, although it will continue to get increasingly treatable and survivable.
It's not like cancer sees some environmental stimulus and says "oh hey look at that, let me just to make more random mutations to my DNA that just happen to make me do this other thing."
Cancer isn't a sentient being, so let's stop talking about it like it is. Cancer doesn't exploit anything, or take affirmative action to a particular result. It, like any other cell, responds to environmental stimuli exactly as its program defines.
But it would be better than what we have now!
fat? :)
Serious question - I understand everyone has fat cells, just that in obese people, they are larger than in lean people. However, if we turn cancer cells into fat cells, and that person adopts a healthy lifestyle to reduce the size of the fat cell, is that a win-win? Or is this a different type of fat cell that has other consequences?
Sadly, the "warfarin and cortisone" treatment discovered with the "non-active" chemicals applied to rabbits never panned out. That was a *general* treatment, it stopped angiogenesis (the growth of new blood vessels) for every cancer it was tried on, in modest doses that did not cause excessive bleeding. The researchers were shocked: they'd been working on using plastic inserts, embedded with medication, as a drug delivery method.
Because Basel is a major center for pharma research, with several major firms headquartered there, it nurtures a university/manufacturing complex that makes it the Silicon Valley of the drug trade. Switzerland has its own regulatory apparatus that is notably faster and more responsive than our FDA, with the same high standards. And as a non-EU country, Switzerland is not subject to regulatory luddism from Brussels. If genetic engineering turns out to be part of the next big cancer treatment, it will flourish in Switzerland.
https://www.pharmaceutical-tec...
There are a variety of single dose and short course chemo drugs out there. They just aren't useful for all cancers. And yes, they make PLENTY of money for their manufacturers. My wife runs an Oncology practice, and I've seen what they bill insurance for them.
While excited. I hope it works out.
Instead of whining that your story didn't get published, why don't you learn how to actually write a summary and insert working hyperlinks to ths original sourcea so that it meets the bare minimum standards of publishability on this site?
So can we fool fat cells into being cancer for a few weeks and then fool them back to fat?
Why didn't it work?
You'll just say "primary source of author on list is not good enough"
https://slashdot.org/submission/9098318/author-announces-gpl-license-recission-on-8chan
Our system of government has always been based on strange men lounging about in smoke filled rooms.
We just need to reach the singularity and upload our minds to defeat cancer forever.
Turn cancer cells into fat cells
Good news for everyone except Hollywood starlets, who'd rather have the cancer.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
That will get cured on November 3, 2020.
Then we'll just get viruses instead. If they don't evolve naturally, someone will make them.
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
Sounds like a massive HIPPA violation if your wife is sharing patient records with you.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
I am a bit suspicious of the value of studies that have not been replicated for more than one case. This is one of those. It is very clever work but I don't think the chances that it will lead to a cancer therapy are particularly high. The idea behind the work is that cells from breast cancer are one type (epithelial), but they need to convert into another type (mesenchymal) so they can leave the tumor and form metastasis. The clever part is that they nudge the mesenchymal cells to convert to fat cells and stop dividing. The problem is that the occurrence of the epithelial to mesenchymal transition in tumors is a bit of a controversial topic. The idea has a devoted cult following, but it has not been convincingly shown to be true. We know that the breast cancer tumors are epithelial and we know that their metastasis are epithelial. Genetic tagging to detect the transition in actual tumors so far have failed to do so and have shown that you don't need this transition to form metastasis. We also can see epithelial cells leaving the tumor without the need to convert to a different cell type. In the work, they use cell lines (cell cultured in a dish) that either readily undergo the epithelial to mesenchymal transition when exposed to a hormone that is abundant in the tissue and the blood (TGF-Beta), or a cell line that is mesenchymal (MDA-MB-231). These experiments show that when you inject these cell lines in a mouse you can reprogram them into fat cells. To make sure the reprogramming also works on tumors they use a human patient derived tumor that is grown in mice. Here is where my major problem with the work is. There are hundreds of these patient derived tumors that are available but they do the experiments on just one. Why just one? Why this particular one? If you are developing a cancer therapy one of the major questions is what are the chances that it will work. You answer that question by testing as many tumors as you can.
Fat cancer sounds terrifying.
Not only does the person who has the cancer get cured but they get some bigger titties in the process. Maybe not so good for the male breast cancer suffers which is very tiny percentage but hey bigger titties are bigger titties and that's a win-win in my book :)
....hello converted cancer cells.
So, this "biohacking" can be used to grow someone's breast fat to make them "naturally" bigger?
No, don''t get up, I'll show myself out
+Raider of the lost BBS
But cancer wants to become fat cells, it just can't remember how without our helpful hints.
All my cancer cells turned into fat!
Oh wait... Americans. Illiterate cretins. You really do have a problem with prepositions in the U.S.A., don't you.
Just insert a random preposition if you don't know the correct one to use!
Like "named for" - which should be "named after", and "in the death of", which should be "FOR the death of". "Mr. Smith was arrested FOR the death of John Jones."
Be cancer free with bigger breasts?
Ducks...
Mimetics Inc. Twitter