Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scientists Have Found 600 New Cancer Vulnerabilities, Each Could Be the Target of a Drug (bbc.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the lost-and-found dept.

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.

21 of 42 comments (clear)

  1. Re: Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You're both wrong. Like cancer

  2. Side effects by bobstreo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:Side effects by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Informative

      can cause constipation, diarrhea, liver and kidney problems, can cause other cancers. ...
      Price? $10000 a month, ...

      You jest, but... my wife died of a brain tumor (GBM) in 2006, just seven weeks after diagnosis. Her chemotherapy medicine was Temodar and the list price was $11,000 for a one-month supply of pills (several months would normally be needed). She had both my BC/BS and her Optima insurance -- on BC/BS the co-pay was 10% ($1,100) on her Optima it was $40 (yes, forty).

      The instructions cautioned against prolonged handling of the pills and breathing dust from them as that could cause -- wait for it -- cancer.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    2. Re:Side effects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just be mindful that those warnings are legal requirements. It's the equivalent of stating that riding in an ambulance could cause death by car accident. Sure, it could. But it's more likely not, and if you are worried about that, you probably forgot the reason you should go into the ambulance to begin with. in that context, a chemotherapy stating that it COULD cause cancer is not that strange.

    3. Re:Side effects by r2kordmaa · · Score: 1

      Sorry for your loss, it sucks. Unfortunately there is no magic pill for cancer, what exists is better than nothing, but nevertheless the chances are rotten especially if treatment starts at a late stage which it usually does for brain tumors. Nobody checks for brain tumors unless there are symptoms indicating something is wrong and by the time you get symptoms you are screwed already.

    4. Re:Side effects by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      He did, you lose

  3. If you had an MBA you would be. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:If you had an MBA you would be. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The only people who lose are those who are sick with these cancers and too poor to afford the treatments when they are developed.

      Please explain how someone is worse off if he can't have a drug because it's too expensive than if he can't have a drug because it's never brought to market.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  4. Sorry other Slashdot readers are ignorant by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Funny

    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
  5. The main problem is ... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... usually getting the drug delivered to the cancer w/o killing or severely injuring the patient. Many, many drugs work great in the lab, in a petri dish, etc.. but can't be delivered through the body to the target cancer/tumor cells w/o being broken down by the body or doing damage to the body, etc... It's usually a race between killing the cancer before killing the patient.

    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. . . .
    1. Re:The main problem is ... by r2kordmaa · · Score: 2

      It's not hard to kill cells, cancerous or otherwise, on a petri dish, a splash of vodka will do the trick. The next to impossible trick is to kill only cancer cells, while leaving healthy cells intact. Usually best you can do is to preferentially kill cancer cells, but there are a whole lot more normal cells than cancer cells in a body...

    2. Re:The main problem is ... by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "It's not hard to kill cells, cancerous or otherwise, on a petri dish, a splash of vodka will do the trick. The next to impossible trick is to kill only cancer cells, while leaving healthy cells intact. "

      So you try different kinds of vodkas.

    3. Re:The main problem is ... by r2kordmaa · · Score: 1

      Until you get results? https://xkcd.com/882/

  6. Attack the vulnerabilities with DNA nanobots by steveha · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
    1. Re:Attack the vulnerabilities with DNA nanobots by at0mjack · · Score: 4, Informative

      Can we cut the stupid conspiracy theories, please?

      Gilead released Sovaldi and Harvoni few years ago - new drugs, based on new drug targets, which cure hepatitis C. Cure, not treat. Gilead has to date made more than $20 billion from these drugs, and is currently disappointing analysts by forecasting that annual revenues will drop to only $3-4 billion a year over the next few years. In the meantime, competitor companies that made less-effective antiviral treatments that used to be the standard of care for Hep C have seen their sales fall to zero.

      There isn't a megalithic "Pharma industry" - there's a whole big bunch of companies, all desperately in competition with each other. If one of them came up with a decent cure for a common type of cancer, they would easily be raking in tens of billions of dollars of profit from it, and their competitors' less-effective treatments would see their sales fall off a cliff. The idea that a company would forego massive revenues in order to protect their competitor's profits is just laughable.

      There's a lot wrong with the pharma industry, their pricing models, the way that competition works, and so on, so I'm far from being an apologist for them. However, the idea that there's an easy cancer cure out there and that it's being buried to protect profits is just dumb. The reason there's no cancer cure is that it's not one disease, it's hundreds of different diseases, finding something that will work is just plain hard, and when we do find something that works it usually works less well than was hoped.

      One final rebuttal to the conspiracy theory nonsense: the world's largest independent charitable research institute is the Institute for Cancer Research, in the UK. It's spent a hundred million dollars per year every year over the last few decades on cancer research. They have produced a few promising-looking treatments for a few specific types of cancer (eg Abiraterone gives advanced prostate cancer patients a few months more life on average), but haven't really done any better than any of the large pharmas in terms of producing effective treatments. Why not? Because it's hard, not because they are Illuminati on the payroll of Big Pharma.

    2. Re:Attack the vulnerabilities with DNA nanobots by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Insulin price rises 1100% in 10 years. No new producer appears with lower cost drug
      Conspiracy proved

    3. Re:Attack the vulnerabilities with DNA nanobots by at0mjack · · Score: 1

      No, that one is regulatory failure pure and simple. With complex biologics such as insulin, you can't make the same biomolecule, go to the FDA, say "Look - it's the same!" and get it on the market. You have to do clinical trials all over again, and these are really expensive. This creates a barrier to market which has recently been exploited more aggressively by greedy pharma companies.

      It's not that the other pharmas don't make their own generic insulin because they're a cartel; they don't do it because it will cost them millions to run the necessary trials, and at the end of it they will not get their money back as the original insulin producers would drop the price back down leading to small profit margins.

      So, there is definitely blame here for a failure of the market, and at least some of that can be laid at the feet of regulatory capture by the pharma companies, but the FDA (and lawmakers) are equally to blame and it's not a "conspiracy".

    4. Re:Attack the vulnerabilities with DNA nanobots by steveha · · Score: 2

      I guess you have missed all the stories about pharma raising prices

      Apparently you read at0mjack's post and didn't understand anything. at0mjack even mentioned insulin. Since you didn't understand it, I'll restate it using littler words. Hope this helps!

      Because the FDA requires insane red tape, companies that successfully get past the red tape then charge a bunch, knowing that other companies can't compete (since the other companies haven't gotten past the red tape). The big companies that can get past the red tape are okay with this situation since they like being able to charge a bunch of money.

      Cutting down the red tape at the FDA would allow the free market to operate and would prevent companies from charging too much money for well-proven things like insulin.

      Another classic example: the EpiPen. Since the technology is decades old, it's no longer under patent. Since epinephrine is a well-understood drug, many companies can make it. Yet the EPA still requires crazy red tape before something like an EpiPen can be sold, and as a result only one company can sell the EpiPen and that company is free to jack up the prices. If the drug market was more of a free market, there would be more than one company making epinephrine self-injectors and competition would bring the prices down to a sane level.

      When this was discussed here on Slashdot, some commentators said "it makes sense to have the FDA put a bunch of red tape on this. What if some stupid company sold something like an EpiPen that didn't work right? People could die!" But the current red tape is so bad that the company can charge $600 for a device that costs something like $5 to make, without facing any competition... that's pretty bad red tape.

      ACHS -- Government Is The Big Reason EpiPen And Other Generics Are So Expensive

      Face it, pharma is the poster child for greed.

      Let's go back and see what at0mjack wrote:

      So, there is definitely blame here for a failure of the market, and at least some of that can be laid at the feet of regulatory capture by the pharma companies, but the FDA (and lawmakers) are equally to blame and it's not a "conspiracy".

      In other words, drugs are expensive due to the situation, and the drug companies are partly to blame but the rest of the blame is on the FDA and the lawmakers. Or in other words, you are criticizing someone who has a much more complete understanding of the situation than you have.

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
  7. Did they at least by ckatko · · Score: 4, Funny

    Did they at least give cancer early notice before announcing zero-day vulnerabilities to the public at large?

  8. Bounty by mentil · · Score: 1

    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.
  9. It's all about the money by Archtech · · Score: 1

    "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.