The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
One Drug to Destroy All Cancers https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=9782 |
Page 1 of 1 |
Author: | Lenas [ Thu Mar 28, 2013 1:57 pm ] |
Post subject: | One Drug to Destroy All Cancers |
This is awesome news. Article quoted in its entirety. http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2 ... umors.html Quote: A single drug can shrink or cure human breast, ovary, colon, bladder, brain, liver, and prostate tumors that have been transplanted into mice, researchers have found. The treatment, an antibody that blocks a "do not eat" signal normally displayed on tumor cells, coaxes the immune system to destroy the cancer cells.
A decade ago, biologist Irving Weissman of the Stanford University School of Medicine in Palo Alto, California, discovered that leukemia cells produce higher levels of a protein called CD47 than do healthy cells. CD47, he and other scientists found, is also displayed on healthy blood cells; it's a marker that blocks the immune system from destroying them as they circulate. Cancers take advantage of this flag to trick the immune system into ignoring them. In the past few years, Weissman's lab showed that blocking CD47 with an antibody cured some cases of lymphomas and leukemias in mice by stimulating the immune system to recognize the cancer cells as invaders. Now, he and colleagues have shown that the CD47-blocking antibody may have a far wider impact than just blood cancers. "What we've shown is that CD47 isn't just important on leukemias and lymphomas," says Weissman. "It's on every single human primary tumor that we tested." Moreover, Weissman's lab found that cancer cells always had higher levels of CD47 than did healthy cells. How much CD47 a tumor made could predict the survival odds of a patient. To determine whether blocking CD47 was beneficial, the scientists exposed tumor cells to macrophages, a type of immune cell, and anti-CD47 molecules in petri dishes. Without the drug, the macrophages ignored the cancerous cells. But when the CD47 was present, the macrophages engulfed and destroyed cancer cells from all tumor types. Next, the team transplanted human tumors into the feet of mice, where tumors can be easily monitored. When they treated the rodents with anti-CD47, the tumors shrank and did not spread to the rest of the body. In mice given human bladder cancer tumors, for example, 10 of 10 untreated mice had cancer that spread to their lymph nodes. Only one of 10 mice treated with anti-CD47 had a lymph node with signs of cancer. Moreover, the implanted tumor often got smaller after treatment -- colon cancers transplanted into the mice shrank to less than one-third of their original size, on average. And in five mice with breast cancer tumors, anti-CD47 eliminated all signs of the cancer cells, and the animals remained cancer-free 4 months after the treatment stopped. "We showed that even after the tumor has taken hold, the antibody can either cure the tumor or slow its growth and prevent metastasis," says Weissman. Although macrophages also attacked blood cells expressing CD47 when mice were given the antibody, the researchers found that the decrease in blood cells was short-lived; the animals turned up production of new blood cells to replace those they lost from the treatment, the team reports online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Cancer researcher Tyler Jacks of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge says that although the new study is promising, more research is needed to see whether the results hold true in humans. "The microenvironment of a real tumor is quite a bit more complicated than the microenvironment of a transplanted tumor," he notes, "and it's possible that a real tumor has additional immune suppressing effects." Another important question, Jacks says, is how CD47 antibodies would complement existing treatments. "In what ways might they work together and in what ways might they be antagonistic?" Using anti-CD47 in addition to chemotherapy, for example, could be counterproductive if the stress from chemotherapy causes normal cells to produce more CD47 than usual. Weissman's team has received a $20 million grant from the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine to move the findings from mouse studies to human safety tests. "We have enough data already," says Weissman, "that I can say I'm confident that this will move to phase I human trials." |
Author: | FarSky [ Thu Mar 28, 2013 2:36 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: One Drug to Destroy All Cancers |
Science, I salute you. |
Author: | Müs [ Thu Mar 28, 2013 2:42 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Cancer can suck it. |
Author: | Darkroland [ Thu Mar 28, 2013 3:00 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: One Drug to Destroy All Cancers |
Spoiler: |
Author: | NephyrS [ Thu Mar 28, 2013 3:38 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
The main problem with this, is that antibody based therapeutics have a lot of issues- not least of which, they usually generate a pretty strong immune response. I'd be much more interested if they were using a non-antibody based approach. Also worth noting that a number of cancer cell lines don't respond to the normal immune cell attacks. The usual mechanism is to bombard the cell with reactive oxygen and nitrogen species, as well as growth factors, to cause programed cell death. One of the hallmarks of many cancers is that they do not respond to programmed cell death signals, and are immortal. Then, the immune response makes things worse, as it causes a wide array of additional mutations. |
Author: | Screeling [ Thu Mar 28, 2013 4:25 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: One Drug to Destroy All Cancers |
I read the published article earlier. All this is doing is using a custom-made monoclonal antibody to tie up the CD47 cell surface protein. Since its monoclonal, it should be rather difficult for the body to illicit an anti-anti-CDB47 mAb response. This seems like a really good route to go, because as the research states, tumors over express CD47 and tumors are already packed with phagocytes (they've just been fooled into doing nothing). This treatment isn't relying on apoptosis, it's relying on phagocytosis. The only damage they found was that it does cause some low-grade anemia for about a week, but the body ramps up RBC production to counter this. Seems like they could easily transfuse some units of RBC's or administer some EPO ahead of treatment to minimize that. Aside from that, they fully admit that this treatment has only been performed on xenografted tumors. If there's something in a home-grown tumor micro-environment that binds these mAb's with higher affinity than CD47, this study's gonna hit a large speed bump. |
Author: | Raell [ Thu Mar 28, 2013 9:42 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
I wish them well. It would be nice if it works out. Here is hoping this cure doesn't start the zombie uprising. |
Author: | Screeling [ Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:47 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: One Drug to Destroy All Cancers |
Raell wrote: I wish them well. It would be nice if it works out. Here is hoping this cure doesn't start the zombie uprising. Would be high-larious if it did because it would essentially be the fault of the "don't eat me, bro" cell marker. |
Author: | NephyrS [ Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:36 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
You read the PNAS paper, Screeling? I've got it queued in my list of stuff to read. Looks like some very interesting back in forth in the form of Letters to the journal on the issue as well. |
Author: | Screeling [ Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:48 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: One Drug to Destroy All Cancers |
NephyrS wrote: You read the PNAS paper, Screeling? I've got it queued in my list of stuff to read. Looks like some very interesting back in forth in the form of Letters to the journal on the issue as well. Yeah - I read it here: http://www.pnas.org/content/109/17/6662 I didn't read the responses to the research though. |
Author: | Talya [ Fri Mar 29, 2013 1:33 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
How long until the pharmaceuticals realize that this will never be as profitable as current cancer treatments and lobby to bury it? |
Author: | Ulfynn [ Fri Mar 29, 2013 2:17 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Why? They can just price it exhorbitantly per dose. So, no need to worry; it can still fit in the current pharma<->insurance racket. |
Author: | Khross [ Fri Mar 29, 2013 6:23 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: One Drug to Destroy All Cancers |
... Just so you know, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration last approved a documented curative agent for public use as a medicine during the Reagan Administration. |
Author: | Kindralas [ Sun Mar 31, 2013 2:54 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Quote: How long until the pharmaceuticals realize that this will never be as profitable as current cancer treatments and lobby to bury it? Generally speaking, pharmaceutical companies investigate profitable things. Fortunately, not all medical research is done by them. Quote: Just so you know, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration last approved a documented curative agent for public use as a medicine during the Reagan Administration. Because an actual, "was sick and now is not" cure is extremely rare. Quote: Why? They can just price it exhorbitantly per dose. So, no need to worry; it can still fit in the current pharma<->insurance racket. Which is an extreme oversimplification of what happens. But, really, you can't blame for-profit companies for making profit. Quote: I'd be much more interested if they were using a non-antibody based approach. There's a largely simple reason that immune response is about as good an option at combatting cancer as you can find: Anything which kills cancerous cells will kill the normal healthy cells you don't want to kill, hence the hell of chemotherapy. Hoping for some miracle cure for anything which has no side effects and easily corrects the problem is mostly just fantasy, especially in the case of something as complex and varied as cancer. Finding a method which can attack cells of such a wide variety of cancers is a phenomenal achievement in and of itself, and if it can be developed into a useful weapon in the fight against cancer, it would likely be the greatest achievement in medicine since vaccination. |
Author: | NephyrS [ Sun Mar 31, 2013 4:03 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
I'm not arguing against the immune response angle. I'm arguing against the use of antibodies rather than a synthetic receptor to block the CD47 antigens, as antibodies are expensive to make and difficult to use as therapeutics for a number of reasons. I'd much prefer to see selected hosts or aptamers used to block the antigens, or even synthetic peptide based binders (ie, Williams et al's synbody approach). Also, I'll disagree generally with your view of immune response as "clean" and chemotherapies as "not-targetted". With many of the currently developing delivery systems combined with pro-drugs, you can get up to 3 levels of specificity- targeting to particular cell types via surface recognition, release of a pro-drug by intracellular (or extracellular) conditions, and then activation of a pro-drug inside a cancerous cell. There's been a lot of work on specifically killing cancerous cells over healthy cells, and it's definitely possible to do. And for biological approaches, I think siRNA therapies and miRNA silencing are probably better and more broadly applicable approaches with less potentially systemic side effects. |
Author: | Kindralas [ Sun Mar 31, 2013 5:08 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
NephyrS wrote: I'm not arguing against the immune response angle. I'm arguing against the use of antibodies rather than a synthetic receptor to block the CD47 antigens, as antibodies are expensive to make and difficult to use as therapeutics for a number of reasons. I'd much prefer to see selected hosts or aptamers used to block the antigens, or even synthetic peptide based binders (ie, Williams et al's synbody approach). Also, I'll disagree generally with your view of immune response as "clean" and chemotherapies as "not-targetted". With many of the currently developing delivery systems combined with pro-drugs, you can get up to 3 levels of specificity- targeting to particular cell types via surface recognition, release of a pro-drug by intracellular (or extracellular) conditions, and then activation of a pro-drug inside a cancerous cell. There's been a lot of work on specifically killing cancerous cells over healthy cells, and it's definitely possible to do. And for biological approaches, I think siRNA therapies and miRNA silencing are probably better and more broadly applicable approaches with less potentially systemic side effects. My characterization of chemo, as well as other therapies, was not to imply that such things are without value, just that it's rare to have a treatment with zero side effects, and that one of the reasons cancer is such a big deal is that such cells are difficult to specifically target without harming other cells. My point was more to state that "cures," in the sense of procedures or drugs which solve problems without any other effects, are exceedingly rare, and that to expect any cancer treatment to cure the cancer without negative side effects is a bit naive. It's my understanding from the quoted article that all they're doing is shutting off the protein that signifies to your immune system that the cancerous cells are normal and healthy. As such, it's not an issue of producing antibodies, or even synthetic receptors, but rather just tagging the cancerous cells for your immune system to handle the way they handle, say, virus-infected cells presenting for natural killer cells. I would be inclined to imagine that you're referring to something else linked elsewhere in the thread. |
Author: | NephyrS [ Sun Mar 31, 2013 5:34 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
The article discussed in this thread wasn't about tagging a cancerous cell with something that the immune system would recognize. it was about using antibodies to the CD47 antigen that tumors present on their surfaces to block those antigens, which will then prompt the immune system to "eat" them. Similar to what you're discussing, but it doesn't remove a tag, per se, but blocks the tag using an antibody. And it's a tag that's found on a number of health cells as well, and makes them target for immune system degradation. And it uses antibodies, which have issues as therapeutics. Monoclonal antibodies, as Screeling pointed out, aren't as bad, but since immune response is usually based on degraded protein fragments, using proteins or protein fragments as drugs can always be potentially problematic from an immunogenic standpoint. Hence why synthetic binders (hosts) or aptamers would be a nice approach. But I'm bothered by the lack of secondary specificity in targeting as well. |
Author: | Rorinthas [ Tue Apr 02, 2013 6:31 am ] |
Post subject: | |
My leukemia research expert has always told me he doesn't believe in a universal cancer cure. I'll have to see what he has to say about this. Other than that, it sounds good. |
Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |