Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Have Found 600 New Cancer Vulnerabilities, Each Could Be the Target of a Drug (bbc.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the BBC: Scientists have taken cancer apart piece-by-piece to reveal its weaknesses, and come up with new ideas for treatment. A team at the Wellcome Sanger Institute disabled every genetic instruction, one at a time, inside 30 types of cancer. It has thrown up 600 new cancer vulnerabilities and each could be the target of a drug. Cancer Research UK praised the sheer scale of the study.
The researchers disrupted nearly 20,000 genes in more than 300 lab-grown tumors made from 30 different types of cancer. The results, published in the journal Nature, revealed 6,000 crucial genes which at least one type of cancer needs to survive. Some were unsuitable for developing cancer drugs, as they are also essential in healthy cells. Others are already the target of precision drugs like Herceptin in breast cancer -- the team called this a "sanity check" that proves their method works. And yet more are beyond current science to develop suitable drugs, so the researchers narrowed down a shortlist of 600 potential new targets for drugs to attack.
The researchers disrupted nearly 20,000 genes in more than 300 lab-grown tumors made from 30 different types of cancer. The results, published in the journal Nature, revealed 6,000 crucial genes which at least one type of cancer needs to survive. Some were unsuitable for developing cancer drugs, as they are also essential in healthy cells. Others are already the target of precision drugs like Herceptin in breast cancer -- the team called this a "sanity check" that proves their method works. And yet more are beyond current science to develop suitable drugs, so the researchers narrowed down a shortlist of 600 potential new targets for drugs to attack.
Stop being dumb. The question is what else do each of these genes do that we're about to target drugs to disrupt, then find out about later.
You're both wrong. Like cancer
can cause constipation, diarrhea, liver and kidney problems, can cause other cancers. Doh't take if you're allergic or have HEP C or a family history of thyroid cancer.
Price? $10000 a month, you'll have to take these drugs for the rest of your life.
XXXOOO, your pharmaceutical company. /s
Expect more lobbying of carcinogenic toxic internal combustion hazards on wheels.
I.e., âoeEVs are bad, batteries are bad for environment, save whales and penguins etc.â
That is 600 current 20 year patents, plus the option of thousands more when they get closer to technical feasilbility. This is exactly the kind of thing intellectual property lawyers get hard over, and MBAs/beancounters drool over. The possibility of a 20 year lockdown on regular profits while being others over the barrel. It is even better when it's funded by the people so you didn't have to risk much if any of your wealth on it, and you can get exclusive licenses or patents to it yourselves.
The only people who lose are those who are sick with these cancers and too poor to afford the treatments when they are developed.
I am so sorry people are not understanding the 100x gravity of your message.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
In addition, my understanding is that, radiation therapy works by damaging the DNA of cells as the reproduce -- the ones actually dividing *during* the radiation treatment -- so they will (eventually) no longer be able to reproduce. This is generally effective as cancer cells reproduce faster than regular cells, but regular cells get damaged too -- which is why there are treatment and lifetime limits on radiation therapy.
All of this is especially difficult with growing children as their cells tend to reproduce faster than in adults, so more damage is done during treatment -- or so I understand.
Remember Sue...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
maybe they can also tell me why I shit blood after eating at chipotle?
If this sort of stuff interests you, you need to read "In the Pipeline". I recommend starting with "Things I won't work with" as its hilarious, but the pure science entries are highly enjoyable & informative as well. https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/category/things-i-wont-work-with
A couple of years ago I read about an exciting new approach to treating cancer: DNA nanobots. These are very simple machines made from DNA.
How simple are they? They are hollow capsules with a hinge and a latch. The one function of the nanobot is to pop the latch open under the correct circumstances.
(Note: I'm a software developer, not any kind of doctor or scientist, and I'm describing this in my own words based on my own understanding. Apologies if I get anything wrong. Links at the end so you can go to better sources.)
The latch can be configured to open only when it bumps into a specific protein. For example, a protein only found on the cancer to be treated.
The idea is that a nano-dose of strong medicine is inserted into the "nanobot" capsules. Each does of medicine is tiny but there are literally trillions of capsules. (That's why they are made out of DNA... no person and no machine can make these, they are self-assembling.) Then the capsules are introduced into the body of the patient. They travel along through the body, bumping into things, and the medicine doesn't do anything because it's contained inside the capsule. Then, when the capsule happens to bump into a cancer cell, the latch opens, the medicine is released, and a nanodose of the medicine is administered directly to the cancer cell.
What I found exciting about this is that it decouples the problems of being both safe and effective. We have plenty of effective anti-cancer drugs, but many of them are useless because they aren't safe. They aren't selective enough; they will kill healthy tissue as much as they kill cancer cells. But if we can program the latch to open only when near the cancer cells, potentially these same drugs would now become safe to use. The nanobot makes the effective drugs safe.
The research from the news story identifies many targets. If the latch can be programmed using this new data, potentially the nanobots can be tailored to attack any kind of cancer and not hurt any healthy tissue.
From time to time I check the news to see if there is anything new about DNA nanobots. The original research I read about has gone silent... I read somewhere that a major drug company had bought the research so maybe it's quietly being developed (and the staggering piles of paperwork quietly started at the FDA).
Here is the research I originally read about:
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2014/12/ido-bachelet-announces-2015-human-trial.html
I didn't find any follow-up about the human trial. I'm wondering whether the treatment worked and the patient was saved.
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/5nck89/what_happened_ido_bachelet_and_leukemia_nanobot/
Here's what appears to be another research team pursuing the same idea.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180212112000.htm
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Did they at least give cancer early notice before announcing zero-day vulnerabilities to the public at large?
Project Zero thanked them for their efforts and promised a fix in the next build.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
Why not infected by all 600 for $600 bucks.
"Scientists Have Found 600 New Cancer Vulnerabilities, Each Could Be the Target of a Drug"
1. 600 new drugs!
2....
3....
4. PROFIT!!!
Or, maybe we could avoid getting cancer in the first place.
Consider: among all the "primitive" indigenous peoples studied by scientists, doctors and other experts in the past three centuries, none of them ever got cancer. None. Period. It was a disease completely unknown to them. Whatever causes cancer, it is something (or several things) that we "civilized" people have been doing to ourselves. A sophisticated form of suicide, which of course does make a lot of money for some along the way.
My guess would be diet (refined carbohydrates, vegetable oils), lack of sleep and exercise, and/or pollution. (By "exercise" I don't mean climbing a flight of stairs, cleaning the house, or golf. Ten and 20 mile walks, 10-mile runs, weight-lifting, hour-long Nautilus sessions, etc. are more like it).
'Nobel prize winning physician and theologian Albert Schweitzer worked at the missionary hospital he founded for more than 40 years before he saw his first case of appendicitis among the African natives. Cancer was completely unknown when he first reached the interior lowlands of West Africa in 1913.
'“On my arrival in Gabon, I was astonished to encounter no cases of cancer,” Schweitzer noted. “I can not, of course, say positively that there was no cancer at all, but, like other frontier doctors, I can only say that if any cases existed they must have been quite rare.”'
https://blog.godreports.com/20...
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Any time I see a new drug that has the possibility of destroying cancer, [insert virus here], etc, I don't even bother reading it. It's usually in its infant stages with 20+ years before it can even be introduced to the market. Granted, Trump has made all drugs available to anybody now across all states now, I'll deal with stuff when I'm confronted with it. It's all click bait imo.
CHA-CHING!!!
John Kanzius already found the cure for cancer. There is no need to waste time with this stuff. All efforts should go into his method of destroying cancer with radio waves and making it available to the public.
There is some compelling evidence that cancer is a metabolic disease and this endless search for genetic defects as the cause of cancer a giant waste of time. Simply put: cancers all share a common defect: they have an energy dysregulation and cannot survive without glucose. There is a protocol designed by Thomas Seyfried out of Boston College along with others in the field that could use diet as part of the cure and avoid chemotherapies, radiation, and some surgical procedures and get better outcomes. Its just researchers are so in love with their genetic defect theory they don't want to look at this one. There is a great book that details this - Tripping Over the Truth'. Additionally, there is a wonderful interview with Thomas Seyfried - I recommend this to anyone interested in the field or anyone with a cancer diagnosis. https://peterattiamd.com/tomse...