Posted by
Roblimo
on from the immune-cells-on-the-run dept.
hajmola writes "according to this article, a study was carried out by researchers at the University of Rochester Medical Center using a particular HIV gene to fight cancerous tumors."
Another case of Sci-Fi being spot on!
by
Nimmy
·
· Score: 2
In the story "Our Neural Chernobyl" (I think by Bruce Sterling), this very thing is predicted (except in the story, cancer is completely cured by an altered HIV strain). That was the basis for the story, it went on to show some potential consequences of having gene-splicing technology accessable to bright young hackers (not hax0rs). I won't give it away, but it is very good read.
If you haven't read it already, I would highly recommend the anthology "Hackers" (I forget the editors). Its a collection of such stories, dealing with technology getting into the hands of hackers (again, in the good sense) and what are some potential consequences. A wonderful collection. In the same vein, "Mirrorshades" edited by Bruce Sterling (I think it may be out of print though) is another excellent anthology of such stories.
--Nick
Re:another final solution, not
by
Thomas+Charron
·
· Score: 2
I think it's a matter of we're being 'sensitised' to breakthoughs. Our knowledge is increasing at such a rapid rate, that yes, there will be breakthoughs ever year or so, some that completely change our outlook, at least for a year or two. They are surely not going to 'cure all things' in a given area, but surely they do lead to that eventuality.
One also has to remember that it's alot of trial and error. Who'd have guessed that eating cat hair daily decreases your risk of (name something) by 1000%?? (NOT a real example, but hey, it could, you know..)
I understand where you're coming from, but as I said, breakthoughs like this where a whole lot bigger 50 years ago.. Remember the headline:
"Smoking Found to cause Lung Cancer"
;-P
-- -- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
These diseases are modern and the eating habits of the western world are modern. Refined sugar is a modern substance...
How many times does this have to be restated? Correlation does not imply causality.
Television is modern too. Does television cause AIDS?
I wouldn't doubt that at one time, some cavedweller claimed that the "modern" invention of the wheel was the cause of a plague (or overall moral decline, or bad weather, or something). The wheel is new; this plague is new, therefore the wheel is the cause of this plague. They were wrong!
Some people today claim that (modern) refined sugar causes (modern) AIDS. Others claim that (modern) television causes (modern) moral decline. They might be right, they might be wrong, but they had better have more to base their arguments on than mere correlation.
Thats why I cannot understand it when enviromental activists tamper with geneticaly modifyed crop tests.
Perhaps because these tests are being carried out without safety precautions? Nothing keeps pollen from GE crops in the field where they're being grown; the pollen can contaminate the genome of neighboring fields, and can even be a hazzard unto itself (the toxic effects of BT corn pollen on butterflies, for instance).
Until we have plenty of understanding and experience - say, a century's worth or so - of the technology, GE crops should be grown under biohazard protocols.
-- Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog You cannot wash away blood with blood
Most Fit, Least Fit... what's the criteria?
by
Chemical+Serenity
·
· Score: 2
If you're big on darwin's idea of how we came about (you people in certain states may not know about this, but there's this guy named Darwin, and he figured that we were evolved, not created;), the idea of natural selection should be plenty familiar to you.
Now, as then, nature favored the individuals that could survive best _in the environment they inhabited_. Natural selection works best when there's a competition for resources (food, shelter, breeding parters, etc)... when those elements are all in abundance, the selection process goes into low gear until a growing population forces limited resource competition again (selection may still be active... for example, in an environment when there are no physical limits to growth, the species that reproduces the fastest would have the best advantage when resources become limited, as they have superior numbers).
Basically, what we have today is a new variety of selection fostered by a far more forgiving environment. People who are poorly educated, stay at home, and breed like rabbits have certain advantages over the ones too busy fighting in the modern day economic survival wars to produce progeny in this environment... as you surmised.
Where it breaks down is when it comes to the time of limited resource again... when food, clothing, shelter are NOT secured (ie: political or economic upheaval). Then those who are more intelligent, or better prepared to be self sufficient in that newly changed environment will be victorious, and will pass on thier characteristics to thier 'species'.
We may indeed become totally reliant on medical technology if we haven't already. If/When the system collapses entirely, say due to a superbug, many will die. Those who don't will have either a physical attribute (resistances), or a more ephemeral attribute (just being damned lucky) that'll be tested in the new environment... at which point all our current criteria will be worth sweet dick all.
Weeding out people based on our _current_ criteria would probably end up hurting us in the long run. When the environment changes, we're going to need as many variants of human as can be mustered to ensure our succesful survival as a species.
-- rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
-- "People will pay big bucks for the luxury of ignorance."
Re:Most Fit, Least Fit... what's the criteria?
by
drox
·
· Score: 2
Natural selection works best when there's a competition for resources (food, shelter, breeding parters, etc).
No it doesn't. It works all the time, equally well. It tends to work fastest when there's severe shortages of resources (or when there's severe crises like hurricanes, comets striking the Earth, etc.), but fastest isn't necessarily best. K-selected species (look it up) like humans are most viable when conditions are stable. If another mass extinction occurs, humans will be ant food.
People who are poorly educated, stay at home, and breed like rabbits have certain advantages over the ones too busy fighting in the modern day economic survival wars to produce progeny in this environment.
That may be true, or it may not. And keep in mind that correlation does not imply causality. Even if there is a causal relationship, it might be reversed. Maybe poor education doesn't cause people to "breed like rabbits" (a notoriously r-selected species), so much as quality education causes people to "breed like pandas". Spending lots of time and money on schooling and "getting ahead" might well result in less time and money left for dating, marriage, and procreation.
If there are "certain advantages" to humans who breed like rabbits, there are even more disadvantages. Look around you - most of the economically successful educated folk do manage to procreate. They have one or two kids instead of five or six. And they take better care of them, send them to quality schools, live in less dangerous places... Their children, though there are fewer of them, are more successful. It's a good bet that they'll have more great great grandchildren than their impoverished neighbors. Long-term survival is the key.
Weeding out people based on our _current_ criteria would probably end up hurting us in the long run. When the environment changes, we're going to need as many variants of human as can be mustered to ensure our succesful survival as a species.
Another entity that kills cancer cells. There are alot of them already. The far more important step that needs to be solved is how to deliver the entity, whether its a gene or a toxin. Just like any toxin, indiscriminate delivery to all cells yields indiscriminate killing of all cells. If we can figure out how to safely deliver a toxin to only the cancer cells 100% of the time, then there are many powerful drugs we can use, some that we don't dare use today.
The research on using monoclonal antibodies has been attempting to address this situation for years, and if they can finally create an antibody that targets only cancer cells and their antigens (of course, differing types of cancer have different target antigens), then the available spectrum of usable drugs gets much wider.
Infection with HIV is unrelated to diet, although a healthy diet may help delay the actual onset of AIDS. And the SAD (Standard American Diet) is linked to increased rates of cancer and heart disease.
But diet doesn't cause the common cold or AIDS, and it's only one factor in cancer. And your recommndation of a high-fat, high-protein diet is completely bogus - that's what leads to increased cancer risk in the first place!
Complex carbohydrates are your friends. Go eat yer veggies.
-- Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog You cannot wash away blood with blood
Humans should eat high protien[sic] high fat and unrefined foods...
Except for the 'unrefined" part, that's what Americans - and much of the rest of the Western world - eats. To their detriment. Protein and fat are certainly necessary, and they taste good to us precisely because we need them in our diet, but humans have outsmarted nature, and many of them now eat far too much of those tasty foods. The cravings nature gave us to ensure that we eat enough of them have resulted in obesity, arteries clogged with fat deposits, and overall poor health. Sure it's possible to become obese as a result of overconsumption of carbohydrates too, but overconsumption of any food will do that. Carbs are not the villain - overconsumption is. And it's often overconsumption of fats and proteins.
Americans should demand that the soil where their crops are grown be replenished.
Yes they should. But this has little or nothing to do with AIDS, HIV, or even nutrition.
The common cold is caused by the same thing that causes AIDS...
That's true in part, only because they're both caused by viruses. But they're very different viruses. HIV is a retrovirus, while the common cold can result from a number of different viruses, including but not limited to picornaviruses.
Our pancreas has three functions, one of which everybody knows insulin production.
I usually dismiss out of hand any post that claims "everybody knows" something. Trust me - they don't. But that's beside the point.
Most people don't know about it's[sic] most important role, and that's the production of T-cells "Tropoblast" cells fight all infection cancer and AIDS included. If your pancreas is too busy cranking out insulin your T-cell count drops, not good.
AIDS causes T-cells to self-destruct. I wouldn't matter if the body is producing them fast and furious, it won't help if they all self-destruct before they can do any good.
Cancer does not typically produce an immune response, as the cancerous cells are the body's own cells, multiplying out of control. So here again, having lots of T-cells wouldn't help.
What did Andy Warhol say? "I'll buy a huge piece of meat, cook it up for dinner, and then right before it's done, I'll break down and have what I wanted for dinner in the first place--bread and jam....all I ever really want is sugar." Andy Warhol, New York Magazine, March 31, 1975. Didn't Andy die of AIDS? Hmmmmm.
Now that's just silly. So Andy Warhol is dead. Correlation does not imply causality. For another, look at all the people in Africa, Southeast Asia, and Eastern Europe who have AIDS. Did they get it from eating too much refined sugar? Not hardly. The Masai of Africa depend on cattle for most of their food, and eat a very high-protein diet (meat and milk) a few grains, and little or no refined sugar or flour. They get AIDS a lot. From a sexually-transmitted virus. NOT from their food.
The city with the dubious distinction of being having the largest number of Junkies, and apparently the highest per-capita rate of HIV infection of all cities in developed nations.
When I went down Hastings street up towards Main the first day I came to Vancouver, there was a guy out on the sidewalk with his rig literally hanging out of his arm as he staggered about. The paramedics were waiting over by the ambulance for the guy to collapse... he was delusional and refusing medical attention (judging by the things he was trying to shout), so they just waited until he passed out before going to work. We periodically see news reports featuring kids shooting up in alleyways while the cops just look on, saying "Problem's too big, we have no power, no real support mechanism, Ottawa ignores us, what can we do?" Whereupon we all shake our heads and thank whatever Gods we hold dear that it isn't US.
When Neil Young came here on concert tour, he made a version of "The Needle and the Damage Done" specifically for Vancouverites. =/
We're not the only place with it, but we're definately among the worst. A shame really, as Vancouver is a beautiful city and a great place to live.
-- rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
-- "People will pay big bucks for the luxury of ignorance."
VPR doesn't detect cells, it just kills em once it gets inside 'em (as you pointed out).
Then gene therapy techniques come into play. Retrovirii are cool little gene delivery devices (check out genetic geektalk here at the NCI Gene Therapy FAQ). Basically, choose a virii strain that normally attacks the cell of choice, insert your custom gene, and stuff it into your patient. Of course, there's potential problems with the idea (if the gene is malengineered, it could lead to a different cancer for example, or attack the wrong cells)... hence the reason why it's still in the experimental stages in a lot of cases.
-- rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
-- "People will pay big bucks for the luxury of ignorance."
Re:Do you really believe *nature* created AIDS ??
by
Eccles
·
· Score: 2
You're assuming this guy believes God created AIDS. That's not the belief. Check this article .
A quote: NEW YORK -- In a recent survey of African Americans, more than one-quarter said they believed that AIDS was caused by a man-made virus developed by the federal government to kill black people.
-- Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
See Vpr in (living?) color!
by
blackrazor
·
· Score: 2
For those following this thread, some of the Vpr structure is available for 3D visualization at the Protein Data Bank
Note that the structure they have is only about half of what is already a small (96 amino acids) protein, so the 3D models are not too impressive. Pretty amazing how something so simple can be so deadly, though.
The site has JPEG graphics that anyone can visualize, plus, if your browser supports Java, there is a simple interactive viewer applet, too.
Someone (I forget who) made a pithy quote on the topic, along the lines of:
"Why is it that the people who most desire immortality are the people who can't find something to do on a rainy tuesday afternoon?"
Or, if you want an even pithier quote:
"Who wants to live forever?" - Queen
Well, I, for one... I'd love to know that barring getting whacked by a bus or getting a cap in the ass, that I could continue on indefinately. Problem is, the world has only so much capacity for life, and if we had no natural limits we'd rapidly all starve, or freeze, or have a superbug wipe us out in some malthusian nightmare.
I've got no doubt that such toys will become available for the uber-reche (think BillG will fear death if these come to pass? doubtful...) but if/when they're created, the general populace WILL NOT KNOW ABOUT IT... cuz if we did, it'd cause an upheaval on our world's society that'd rival that of an asteroid collision.
-- rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
-- "People will pay big bucks for the luxury of ignorance."
vpr-method of destruction
by
dondelelcaro
·
· Score: 3
As I was piqued by the article on the use of vpr as an anti cancer drug, and the fact that it maintained that vpr did not have a "known" method of killing cells, I did a little search on melvyl to educate myself, and found that there actually is some extensive research on the "method" of vpr mediated cell apostasis.
It seems that vpr does indeed kill cells (indiscriminatly... a vesicle bound delivery mechanism is needed to deliver vpr on contact) in a manner quite different from that of p53. vpr induces caspases [1] which in turn causes the "cleavage of critical cellular substrates, including poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase and lamins, so precipitating the dramatic morphological changes of apoptosis[,]" [2] resulting in cell death. (Of course, the article was absolutely correct, p53 is a totally separate mechanism[1])
Notably, the key with using such a drug against cancer, as with all cancer drugs, is a finely targeted delivery system. I suspect that if vpr sees clinical usage, it will either be in a vesical bound delivery system (antibody mediated vesical fusion) or a one time viral borne delivery system (such as HIV minus the ability to manufacture protein coats with the appropriate antibody mounted on the protein.)
1: Shostak LD; Ludlow J; Fisk J; Pursell S; Rimel BJ; Nguyen D; Rosenblatt JD; Planelles V. Roles of p53 and caspases in the induction of cell cycle arrest and apoptosis by HIV-1 vpr. Experimental Cell Research, 1999 Aug 25, 251(1):156-65.
2: Cohen GM. Caspases: the executioners of apoptosis. Biochemical Journal, 1997 Aug 15, 326 ( Pt 1):1-16.
Don Armstrong -".naidnE elttiL etah I"
-- http://www.donarmstrong.com
another final solution, not
by
jilles
·
· Score: 3
Every few weeks news like this seems to pop up: "major breaktrhrough in research". While often the research is relevant, it usually represents an incremental improvement. When I read a headline like this, I wonder: what type of cancer; what percentage of the cases of this specific type of cancer can be cured (100% is rare); has there been any case studies yet or is this another laboratory experiment.
I think far more likely the cause is the incubation period of HIV, being anywhere from 6 months to years without any symptoms, the entire time being contagious... and the particularly FUN way that it gets transferred makes it a bitch to contain. If it was ONLY transferred by direct blood contact (IV users were the original suffers in substantial numbers) then it would have remained some obscure rare disease that people in 3rd world countries would just simply die of.
Sure, mutations contribute by reason of making it more difficult to generate useful therapies (to cure or vaccinate against it), but the primary means of infection remain the dominant reason for its continued existance. Kids (and some foolish adults) still figure they can fuck and forget... all too often that's proven tragically wrong. Not to mention the heroin addicts and part-time hookers who turn the odd trick to subsidize thier affliction. Living in Vancouver gives you a whole new perspective on that sort of thing. =(
-- rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
-- "People will pay big bucks for the luxury of ignorance."
Lets say the virii attack a whole bunch of different types of cells. It injects the gene, kills the cell... the cell necrotizes, disperses its contents into the body. If the dose is large enough, or the virus manages to reproduce inside the affected cell, you're basically looking at liquifaction of your organs, connecting tissue, bones, skin... custom engineered Ebola, and then some.
This happens in small scale whenever you get a cold or flu, although most of the nasty fluids coming out of your body are more due to various excretions from living cells involved in the histamine reaction than rotting cell corpse juice.;)
(Well, maybe not rotting, as rot requires bacteria, but you know what I mean)
-- rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
-- "People will pay big bucks for the luxury of ignorance."
Slashdot Mirror
In the story "Our Neural Chernobyl" (I think by Bruce Sterling), this very thing is predicted (except in the story, cancer is completely cured by an altered HIV strain). That was the basis for the story, it went on to show some potential consequences of having gene-splicing technology accessable to bright young hackers (not hax0rs). I won't give it away, but it is very good read.
If you haven't read it already, I would highly recommend the anthology "Hackers" (I forget the editors). Its a collection of such stories, dealing with technology getting into the hands of hackers (again, in the good sense) and what are some potential consequences. A wonderful collection. In the same vein, "Mirrorshades" edited by Bruce Sterling (I think it may be out of print though) is another excellent anthology of such stories.
--Nick
I think it's a matter of we're being 'sensitised' to breakthoughs. Our knowledge is increasing at such a rapid rate, that yes, there will be breakthoughs ever year or so, some that completely change our outlook, at least for a year or two. They are surely not going to 'cure all things' in a given area, but surely they do lead to that eventuality.
One also has to remember that it's alot of trial and error. Who'd have guessed that eating cat hair daily decreases your risk of (name something) by 1000%?? (NOT a real example, but hey, it could, you know..)
I understand where you're coming from, but as I said, breakthoughs like this where a whole lot bigger 50 years ago.. Remember the headline:
"Smoking Found to cause Lung Cancer"
;-P
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Nightshade and other poisonous plants are common agricultural weeds. Fortunately farmers get rid of them one way or the other.
These diseases are modern and the eating habits of the western world are modern. Refined sugar is a modern substance...
How many times does this have to be restated? Correlation does not imply causality.
Television is modern too. Does television cause AIDS?
I wouldn't doubt that at one time, some cavedweller claimed that the "modern" invention of the wheel was the cause of a plague (or overall moral decline, or bad weather, or something). The wheel is new; this plague is new, therefore the wheel is the cause of this plague. They were wrong!
Some people today claim that (modern) refined sugar causes (modern) AIDS. Others claim that (modern) television causes (modern) moral decline. They might be right, they might be wrong, but they had better have more to base their arguments on than mere correlation.
Until we have plenty of understanding and experience - say, a century's worth or so - of the technology, GE crops should be grown under biohazard protocols.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Now, as then, nature favored the individuals that could survive best _in the environment they inhabited_. Natural selection works best when there's a competition for resources (food, shelter, breeding parters, etc)... when those elements are all in abundance, the selection process goes into low gear until a growing population forces limited resource competition again (selection may still be active... for example, in an environment when there are no physical limits to growth, the species that reproduces the fastest would have the best advantage when resources become limited, as they have superior numbers).
Basically, what we have today is a new variety of selection fostered by a far more forgiving environment. People who are poorly educated, stay at home, and breed like rabbits have certain advantages over the ones too busy fighting in the modern day economic survival wars to produce progeny in this environment... as you surmised.
Where it breaks down is when it comes to the time of limited resource again... when food, clothing, shelter are NOT secured (ie: political or economic upheaval). Then those who are more intelligent, or better prepared to be self sufficient in that newly changed environment will be victorious, and will pass on thier characteristics to thier 'species'.
We may indeed become totally reliant on medical technology if we haven't already. If/When the system collapses entirely, say due to a superbug, many will die. Those who don't will have either a physical attribute (resistances), or a more ephemeral attribute (just being damned lucky) that'll be tested in the new environment... at which point all our current criteria will be worth sweet dick all.
Weeding out people based on our _current_ criteria would probably end up hurting us in the long run. When the environment changes, we're going to need as many variants of human as can be mustered to ensure our succesful survival as a species.
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
"People will pay big bucks for the luxury of ignorance."
Another entity that kills cancer cells. There are alot of them already. The far more important step that needs to be solved is how to deliver the entity, whether its a gene or a toxin. Just like any toxin, indiscriminate delivery to all cells yields indiscriminate killing of all cells. If we can figure out how to safely deliver a toxin to only the cancer cells 100% of the time, then there are many powerful drugs we can use, some that we don't dare use today.
The research on using monoclonal antibodies has been attempting to address this situation for years, and if they can finally create an antibody that targets only cancer cells and their antigens (of course, differing types of cancer have different target antigens), then the available spectrum of usable drugs gets much wider.
But diet doesn't cause the common cold or AIDS, and it's only one factor in cancer. And your recommndation of a high-fat, high-protein diet is completely bogus - that's what leads to increased cancer risk in the first place!
Complex carbohydrates are your friends. Go eat yer veggies.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
...in debunking this nonsense
Humans should eat high protien[sic] high fat and unrefined foods...
Except for the 'unrefined" part, that's what Americans - and much of the rest of the Western world - eats. To their detriment. Protein and fat are certainly necessary, and they taste good to us precisely because we need them in our diet, but humans have outsmarted nature, and many of them now eat far too much of those tasty foods. The cravings nature gave us to ensure that we eat enough of them have resulted in obesity, arteries clogged with fat deposits, and overall poor health. Sure it's possible to become obese as a result of overconsumption of carbohydrates too, but overconsumption of any food will do that. Carbs are not the villain - overconsumption is. And it's often overconsumption of fats and proteins.
Americans should demand that the soil where their crops are grown be replenished.
Yes they should. But this has little or nothing to do with AIDS, HIV, or even nutrition.
The common cold is caused by the same thing that causes AIDS...
That's true in part, only because they're both caused by viruses. But they're very different viruses. HIV is a retrovirus, while the common cold can result from a number of different viruses, including but not limited to picornaviruses.
Our pancreas has three functions, one of which everybody knows insulin production.
I usually dismiss out of hand any post that claims "everybody knows" something. Trust me - they don't. But that's beside the point.
Most people don't know about it's[sic] most important role, and that's the production of T-cells "Tropoblast" cells fight all infection cancer and AIDS included. If your pancreas is too busy cranking out insulin your T-cell count drops, not good.
AIDS causes T-cells to self-destruct. I wouldn't matter if the body is producing them fast and furious, it won't help if they all self-destruct before they can do any good.
Cancer does not typically produce an immune response, as the cancerous cells are the body's own cells, multiplying out of control. So here again, having lots of T-cells wouldn't help.
What did Andy Warhol say? "I'll buy a huge piece of meat, cook it up for dinner, and then right before it's done, I'll break down and have what I wanted for dinner in the first place--bread and jam....all I ever really want is sugar." Andy Warhol, New York Magazine, March 31, 1975. Didn't Andy die of AIDS? Hmmmmm.
Now that's just silly. So Andy Warhol is dead. Correlation does not imply causality. For another, look at all the people in Africa, Southeast Asia, and Eastern Europe who have AIDS. Did they get it from eating too much refined sugar? Not hardly. The Masai of Africa depend on cattle for most of their food, and eat a very high-protein diet (meat and milk) a few grains, and little or no refined sugar or flour. They get AIDS a lot. From a sexually-transmitted virus. NOT from their food.
The city with the dubious distinction of being having the largest number of Junkies, and apparently the highest per-capita rate of HIV infection of all cities in developed nations.
When I went down Hastings street up towards Main the first day I came to Vancouver, there was a guy out on the sidewalk with his rig literally hanging out of his arm as he staggered about. The paramedics were waiting over by the ambulance for the guy to collapse... he was delusional and refusing medical attention (judging by the things he was trying to shout), so they just waited until he passed out before going to work. We periodically see news reports featuring kids shooting up in alleyways while the cops just look on, saying "Problem's too big, we have no power, no real support mechanism, Ottawa ignores us, what can we do?" Whereupon we all shake our heads and thank whatever Gods we hold dear that it isn't US.
When Neil Young came here on concert tour, he made a version of "The Needle and the Damage Done" specifically for Vancouverites. =/
We're not the only place with it, but we're definately among the worst. A shame really, as Vancouver is a beautiful city and a great place to live.
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
"People will pay big bucks for the luxury of ignorance."
Maybe I should change my tagline to "If I quote someone, it's usually paraphrased, and BADLY. Let the reader beware." ;)
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
"People will pay big bucks for the luxury of ignorance."
Take a look a little Electron Microscopy of the never-isolated virus magically captured.
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
"People will pay big bucks for the luxury of ignorance."
Then gene therapy techniques come into play. Retrovirii are cool little gene delivery devices (check out genetic geektalk here at the NCI Gene Therapy FAQ). Basically, choose a virii strain that normally attacks the cell of choice, insert your custom gene, and stuff it into your patient. Of course, there's potential problems with the idea (if the gene is malengineered, it could lead to a different cancer for example, or attack the wrong cells)... hence the reason why it's still in the experimental stages in a lot of cases.
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
"People will pay big bucks for the luxury of ignorance."
For a bit more technical info (although a bit old), see http://www.rochester.edu/College/McNair-Program/19 96Journal/BiologyAbstracts96.html. Vicente Planelles seems to have two patents, US05639619 and US05721104, for testing anti-HIV drugs using VPR, but I couldn't find any for using VPR against cancer..
Amiga - Back for the future!
You're assuming this guy believes God created AIDS. That's not the belief. Check this article .
A quote:
NEW YORK -- In a recent survey of African Americans, more than one-quarter said they believed that AIDS was caused by a man-made virus developed by the federal government to kill black people.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Note that the structure they have is only about half of what is already a small (96 amino acids) protein, so the 3D models are not too impressive. Pretty amazing how something so simple can be so deadly, though.
The site has JPEG graphics that anyone can visualize, plus, if your browser supports Java, there is a simple interactive viewer applet, too.
Fortune favors the bold. -Virgil
I've got no doubt that such toys will become available for the uber-reche (think BillG will fear death if these come to pass? doubtful...) but if/when they're created, the general populace WILL NOT KNOW ABOUT IT... cuz if we did, it'd cause an upheaval on our world's society that'd rival that of an asteroid collision.
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
"People will pay big bucks for the luxury of ignorance."
As I was piqued by the article on the use of vpr as an anti cancer drug, and the fact that it maintained that vpr did not have a "known" method of killing cells, I did a little search on melvyl to educate myself, and found that there actually is some extensive research on the "method" of vpr mediated cell apostasis.
It seems that vpr does indeed kill cells (indiscriminatly... a vesicle bound delivery mechanism is needed to deliver vpr on contact) in a manner quite different from that of p53. vpr induces caspases [1] which in turn causes the "cleavage of critical cellular substrates, including poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase and lamins, so precipitating the dramatic morphological changes of apoptosis[,]" [2] resulting in cell death. (Of course, the article was absolutely correct, p53 is a totally separate mechanism[1])
Notably, the key with using such a drug against cancer, as with all cancer drugs, is a finely targeted delivery system. I suspect that if vpr sees clinical usage, it will either be in a vesical bound delivery system (antibody mediated vesical fusion) or a one time viral borne delivery system (such as HIV minus the ability to manufacture protein coats with the appropriate antibody mounted on the protein.)
1: Shostak LD; Ludlow J; Fisk J; Pursell S; Rimel BJ; Nguyen D; Rosenblatt JD; Planelles V. Roles of p53 and caspases in the induction of cell cycle arrest and apoptosis by HIV-1 vpr. Experimental Cell Research, 1999 Aug 25, 251(1):156-65.
2: Cohen GM. Caspases: the executioners of apoptosis. Biochemical Journal, 1997 Aug 15, 326 ( Pt 1):1-16.
Don Armstrong -".naidnE elttiL etah I"
http://www.donarmstrong.com
Every few weeks news like this seems to pop up:
"major breaktrhrough in research". While often the research is relevant, it usually represents an incremental improvement. When I read a headline like this, I wonder: what type of cancer; what percentage of the cases of this specific type of cancer can be cured (100% is rare); has there been any case studies yet or is this another laboratory experiment.
To be short I'm highly sceptical.
Jilles
Sure, mutations contribute by reason of making it more difficult to generate useful therapies (to cure or vaccinate against it), but the primary means of infection remain the dominant reason for its continued existance. Kids (and some foolish adults) still figure they can fuck and forget... all too often that's proven tragically wrong. Not to mention the heroin addicts and part-time hookers who turn the odd trick to subsidize thier affliction. Living in Vancouver gives you a whole new perspective on that sort of thing. =(
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
"People will pay big bucks for the luxury of ignorance."
Lets say the virii attack a whole bunch of different types of cells. It injects the gene, kills the cell... the cell necrotizes, disperses its contents into the body. If the dose is large enough, or the virus manages to reproduce inside the affected cell, you're basically looking at liquifaction of your organs, connecting tissue, bones, skin... custom engineered Ebola, and then some.
This happens in small scale whenever you get a cold or flu, although most of the nasty fluids coming out of your body are more due to various excretions from living cells involved in the histamine reaction than rotting cell corpse juice. ;)
(Well, maybe not rotting, as rot requires bacteria, but you know what I mean)
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
"People will pay big bucks for the luxury of ignorance."