Cancer-killing virus

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Mar 9, 2005
1,345
1
0
44
#1
Without a doubt one of the most important tasks set to medical scientists is the development of more efficacious treatments and even cures to common forms of cancer.

I've had me eye on breakthrough research for a while now, and this seems to me to be one of the most promising new developments for quite some time. It's still a ways from a final 'cure-for-all' cancers, but with a bit of luck and some more detailed research, we could be well on our way.


Hybrid virus may help fight cancer
Local scientists find that it shows promise as a way to target tumors


By ERIC BERGER
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle


Using the cell-invading prowess of viruses and the hybrid concepts driving up automobile fuel efficiency these days, local scientists have found a way to light up cancerous tumors in mice like fireflies in the night.

What sounds like a genetics parlor trick may be an important step toward identifying cancer cells and zapping them before they spread and smother healthy organs.

By creating a hybrid out of two dissimilar viruses, researchers hope to be able to illuminate tumor cells, making it easier for doctors to target cancers and monitor treatments.

It also could provide a kick-start to the unfulfilled promise of gene therapy.

"This really bridges a big gap," said Renata Pasqualini, a professor of medicine and cancer biology at The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, co-leader of a study published in Friday's issue of the journal Cell.

That gap — the successful delivery of genes into cells — has been the primary reason medical researchers have failed to get gene therapy to live up to its potential.

Genes, the carriers of hereditary information, signal a body's cells when it's time to manufacture certain proteins. These proteins carry out the basic biologic functions of life.

Scientists long have thought that inserting normal genes into cells to replace the function of defective genes, such as restoring insulin production in the case of diabetics, could treat diseases.

But they have struggled to capitalize on the trove of information on the 25,000 human genes accumulated in the past decade, largely because of the delivery problem.

Viruses by nature attack human cells to introduce their genes into the host cell for the purposes of replicating and spreading throughout the body. Scientists already have tapped that ability.

But viruses have proved to be imperfect carriers of "good" genes because they attack human cells indiscriminately, both the healthy and cancerous. Moreover, the body's immune system often is good at destroying these viruses before they reach their targets.

These shortcomings have led scientists to look a little further down the food chain to viruses that infect bacteria. Such viruses are found everywhere, from soil to the human gut.

Bacterial viruses can be targeted very specifically to different types of cells. But because they've evolved to infect bacteria, these viruses do a poor job delivering good genes into human cells.

What's a biologist to do? Combine the best features of both viruses into one.

The hybrid virus created by Pasqualini and her colleagues at M.D. Anderson infected nearly 100 percent of the targeted cancerous cells, and the genes they delivered functioned for weeks or even months, a stunning success. The delivered genes produced fluorescent proteins that the researchers could easily see with imaging equipment.

With the new technique, Pasqualini said, it could be possible for cancer doctors and their patients to know almost immediately whether chemotherapy and other treatments are having any effect on tumors.

It's worth noting, however, that there have been past successes with small animals that haven't translated into larger mammals or humans.

"This is only a proof-of-concept" cautioned Dr. Wadih Arap, a co-leader of the study along with Pasqualini.

Still, the research has garnered the attention of other cancer scientists. Not only does it appear to have solved the problems of targeting and delivery, but the hybrid virus seems to evade the body's immune system long enough to deliver its genetic payload.

"I have a lot of excitement for this new approach," said Dr. Steven Libutti, a senior investigator at the National Cancer Institute and head of its Tumor Angiogenesis Section.

Libutti and other researchers are testing the hybrid virus in dogs with cancerous tumors. In the study, Libutti has begun using the hybrid virus to transport genes that produce a protein-like material that's toxic to cells that line blood vessels leading to tumors. Kill the blood vessels and the tumor starves.

Performing the study in large animals is the final step before the hybrid virus can be tested in humans, possibly within a few years.

"We've treated the first dog in this study without any toxicity," Libutti said. "We should know soon whether the new approach works, but we're very hopeful."

Source: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3811517.html


There are some potential problems, such as whether this protein attacks normal blood vessels or just focusses on angiogenesis (the development of new blood vessels to feed tumors), among others, but it's off to a good start.

If you want a copy of the journal paper published in The Cell, or a brief synopsis of their findings, let me know and I'll provide it for you. If you'd like to know more about how scientists use viruses to treat cancers, I'll give you a brief run-down on that too. If you don't care, atleast cross your fingers with me while we wait and see if this treatment lives up to its promise.
 
Nov 1, 2004
2,946
78
48
39
#2
this is something i truly believe in, and it sounds wrong but i think its true.
There is no money in a cure.. with a cure, how will doctors make their money? Medical science is most likely focusing on how to make people live longer with the disease, therefore the patient needs more medicine, more treatment, and in the end, pays more to the doctor.
sounds fucked up but in this world is all about the money, and if they cured aids and cancer, there is a big chunk of money out of their pockets. i dont think they would allow that
 
Aug 13, 2005
522
0
16
#3
^^^Most of the scientists who do this type of research are not in it for the money. If they wanted money, they would have went on to become doctors. They do this because one, its interesting, and two, to find a cure to help humanity. It does not matter who funds them, they look for cures, and if they find cures, people will know.
 
Mar 9, 2005
1,345
1
0
44
#4
I agree - I only know about half a dozen people who do medical research, but each of them suggest that they do such research for two reasons: They thirst for knowledge (that's required of every researcher), and they believe that they can contribute to increasing the quality of life (be that through better treatments or increased life expectancy) of people.

That may not be true for everyone 5-Dime, as Chris Rock said and as you pointed out - there's no money in a cure. However, cancer is one such 'disease' where there is an awful lot of money in a cure. Based on our current understanding atleast, it's impossible to fully prevent cancer. Sure, there are steps one can take to minimize your risk of getting cancer, but it doesn't take away from the fact that one third of people ultimately die as a result of cancer. If a cure could be found, the discoverer(s) would be a multi millionaire (if not billionaire) overnight.
 
Aug 13, 2005
522
0
16
#7
To Y- Soulja

No. There is very little research companies left, especially in the states. This is due to the lack of money generated to continue further research. Companies that want to make money now, produce medicine, vaccines, etc etc etc

To 5-dime
for you to believe that people are really there to help.. its all about the money man, ofcorse they arent gonna SAY that. but think about it
HA...Researches who find cures or dont find them see the same amount of money. This is because they work for a company which holds the rights to everything that they find. Researchers work for companies because to make studies on cancer costs a lot of money. So it is safe to say that they dont do this for the money, since either way they dont get paid from it.
 
Nov 1, 2004
2,946
78
48
39
#8
yeah ok, they probably researchs ways to LIVE with the siccness (haha) instead of curing it.
im sure they can cure some of this shit, but they just dont want too
 
Mar 9, 2005
1,345
1
0
44
#11
Yes - evolution is that fast.

Showilla's hit the nail on the head. Regardless of whether they find a cure, or develop a treatment, most researchers see very little financial reward for their findings. They do it more for the fame (it sounds bad) - kind of medical celebrities. The more papers you publish and discoveries you find, the more competent you are at performing research and the better your resume looks. This will, ofcourse, give you a better chance at securing a high-paying job in the field of research. Logically then, it is in the researchers best interests to search for cures and to let the whole world know when they've found one.

Drug companies are obsessed with money - they're one of the most greedy class of corporation out there. The majority of researchers are only obsessed with money to the extent that they want to be able to feed their children, maintain their house and afford a car to get to work.

The money argument falls apart when you think about it - if you want to make money, then don't get into research! There are hundreds of other jobs out there which are a lot easier that make more money than scientific research.
 

Palmer

RIP SouthernComfort
Apr 10, 2006
4,985
4,812
113
39
SEAHAWKS!!!
#14
Good shit everyone, a lot of different views and things to think about. I personally think research companies haven't found cures, or haven't gone public with cures not only for money, but also for over population. Like someone said on here one third of the world dies from cancer related deaths. If you take out cancer that's a lot more people alive and well. Which means more polution, higher cost of living and so on and so on. That is also why I think AIDS was created not found on accident.

We have so much crazy technology but yet we can't figure out how to cure cancer. It's not just cancer and other illnesses either. I believe that most of the flaws in our society are left alone intentionally to create jobs. That's just me though what the fuck do I know.
 
Aug 13, 2005
522
0
16
#15
Even though we are very advanced in the field of science there is still A LOT more to learn, we dont know everything, and we never will. About the population, we are currently in a Log phase, and as the population grows necessities such as water, and for now gasoline will be scarce. Eventually we will hit a stationary phase, if things are not changed, and modifications are not made. The stationary phase, Birth rate = Death rate, or ZPG.
 

I AM

Some Random Asshole
Apr 25, 2002
21,002
86
48
#16
I bet there's a cure right now, but does anyone think those in power would want to give that up? I mean, first it's gonna cost a shit load, only the wealthy will be able to afford it...Then once a shit load more people die, it MIGHT be released. There's cures for all sorts of shit, mostly natural, lots of them are in and come from the rainforest, which is being destroyed more and more each day.
 
Mar 9, 2005
1,345
1
0
44
#18
Cancer is a nasty disease - it's not only extremly complex but it is also difficult to distinguish cancerous cells from normal, healthy ones. I can almost guarantee you that no cure has yet been found for cancer. Natural compounds are very efficient at treating certain diseases, and I strongly support naturopathic medicines and other alternatives to drugs, but no natural compound can ELIMINATE cancer (there are some comounds which can slow the growth, but not reverse it). A cure for cancer is the holy grail of medicine, and when it is found, trust me - everyone on Earth will know about it REAL quick.

Most Western countries are currently undergoing zero point growth - the main factor contributing to the increase in Americas population is immigration, likewise for Australia. Many Asian, African and even South American countries are still experiencing exponential growth, in some cases the percentage of population under 18 years of age is almost 50%. For some reason though, most scientists are more concerned about human life (each and every life) than sustainable growth. I'm one of the few in the opposite category.

As for man creating AIDS to cut back on the population - the argument makes little sense. The disease itself is very sloppy and it takes far too long to kill it's victim (I've known a guy who's had AIDS for 15 years now and he's still kicking on). I could create a better disease myself if I had the means and the inclination (and a bit of help of course!).
 

Y-S

Sicc OG
Dec 10, 2005
3,765
0
0
#19
There are cures for almost every kind diseases, the problem is just that almost everyone on earth/public has a poor knowledge bout them that's why they act like there are no cures for aids, cancer, etc.....
 
Mar 9, 2005
1,345
1
0
44
#20
The complexity of diseases such as cancer and AIDS literaly boggle the mind. They are damn nasty, and it's not as though we can grab a bush, eat a few leaves and then we're cured. There is no cure (yet) - and I'm quite certain that a cure WILL be found in the next few decades but for now we'll have to die gracefully. You greatly overestimate the abilities of scientists!