Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Elephants Rarely Get Cancer, Now We Know Why (2015)

blogs.discovermagazine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 87 posts

Re: Elephants Rarely Get Cancer, Now We Know Why (2015)

#31

Post by DoreenMichele »

Sniffnoy wrote: post #29
DoreenMichele wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As such, genetic therapies are unlikely to have an effect. Can you back that up somehow? That doesn't sound at all right to me. Edit: For the upvote, downvote brigade -- with zero reply so far, but this comment has gone to zero and back to one umpteen times already -- I'm genuinely curious. This isn't some kind of gotcha question. I have a genetic disorder. I have umpteen relatives who have had cancer. I actually hav…

We're talking about genetic therapies that would make cells less prone to mutating into cancerous cells. This would have no effect on cells that are already cancerous, introduced from an outside source.

I read the article. It says this gene actively promotes apoptosis -- cell death -- in defective cells.

I mean, I guess it would depend on how you are introducing the gene. How many cells it is getting into.

But if it causes defective cells to suicide, why would it matter where the defect is coming from? I don't think we really have a good handle on what causes cancer. I suspect more cancer is due to some infectious agent than is generally believed and we know genetic variations have significant impact on the immune system and its ability to function at all.

Re: Elephants Rarely Get Cancer, Now We Know Why (2015)

#32

Post by londons_explore »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #16
duskwuff wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cancers you're thinking of in Tasmanian Devils are the result of a transmissible (!) tumor. The cancerous cells aren't the result of mutations within the animal's body, but instead are introduced into it from another infected animal. As such, genetic therapies are unlikely to have an effect.

As such, genetic therapies are unlikely to have an effect. Can you back that up somehow? That doesn't sound at all right to me. Edit: For the upvote, downvote brigade -- with zero reply so far, but this comment has gone to zero and back to one umpteen times already -- I'm genuinely curious. This isn't some kind of gotcha question. I have a genetic disorder. I have umpteen relatives who have had cancer. I actually hav…

See reply by Sniffoy

Re: Elephants Rarely Get Cancer, Now We Know Why (2015)

#33

Post by sek »

Just a hypothesis I thought of:

A lot of cancer cells are developed because of constant background radiation, if you get older you just were exposed to more of it.

Elephants have a much higher volume to be affected by it, so just from an evolutionary perspective they had to develop a better resistance. The ones who got cancer early couldn't reproduce as well.

Does that make sense? Or does the article say exactly that?

Re: Elephants Rarely Get Cancer, Now We Know Why (2015)

#34

Post by kungito »

londons_explore wrote: post #28
chubot wrote: post #22

Didn't early humans also rarely get cancer? My understanding is that cancer is one of those things you die from if you don't die at child birth, get eaten by predators, or get the flu, polio, malaria, the plague, etc. That is, the reason cancer is such a big deal in modern times is because other causes of death have been controlled. I don't know much about elephants but I imagine cancer is still low on their list of…

Prehistoric human lifetime is very hard to estimate, but I have heard reports that while infant mortality was high, actual lifetimes could still reach 70+ years

I don't get this argument. Sure, some did reach old age but we are way more interested in what percentage of them it was

Re: Elephants Rarely Get Cancer, Now We Know Why (2015)

#35

Post by rob-olmos »

Sniffnoy wrote: post #27
pmoriarty wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you go in to more detail on why genetic therapies wouldn't work on a transmissible tumor? Aren't those tumors still affecting the genes in the cells and causing them to grow out of control?

No, the tumor is the cells growing out of control, not some separate thing that acts on the genes of nearby cells. Once cells have mutated into a tumor, it's a bit late to make them less prone to doing so.

The article mentions possibly treating/curing cancer: "He believes there could be a drug that could mimic the effect of p53, or a way to deliver these genes to people at risk of developing cancer, or who already have it to treat or cure the disease."

Re: Elephants Rarely Get Cancer, Now We Know Why (2015)

#36

Post by dean177 »

sek wrote: post #33

Just a hypothesis I thought of: A lot of cancer cells are developed because of constant background radiation, if you get older you just were exposed to more of it. Elephants have a much higher volume to be affected by it, so just from an evolutionary perspective they had to develop a better resistance. The ones who got cancer early couldn't reproduce as well. Does that make sense? Or does the article say exactly that…

Why not have a read and find out?

Re: Elephants Rarely Get Cancer, Now We Know Why (2015)

#37

Post by luc4sdreyer »

londons_explore wrote: post #28
chubot wrote: post #22

Didn't early humans also rarely get cancer? My understanding is that cancer is one of those things you die from if you don't die at child birth, get eaten by predators, or get the flu, polio, malaria, the plague, etc. That is, the reason cancer is such a big deal in modern times is because other causes of death have been controlled. I don't know much about elephants but I imagine cancer is still low on their list of…

Prehistoric human lifetime is very hard to estimate, but I have heard reports that while infant mortality was high, actual lifetimes could still reach 70+ years

It's true that life expectancy used to be very low due to very high infant mortality, but even after that it wasn't easy going:

> Based on Neolithic and Bronze Age data, the total life expectancy at 15 would not exceed 34 years. Based on the data from modern hunter-gatherer populations, it is estimated that at 15, life expectancy was an additional 39 years (total 54), with a 0.60 probability of reaching 15.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Variation_over...

Re: Elephants Rarely Get Cancer, Now We Know Why (2015)

#38

Post by dr_dshiv »

kungito wrote: post #34
londons_explore wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prehistoric human lifetime is very hard to estimate, but I have heard reports that while infant mortality was high, actual lifetimes could still reach 70+ years

I don't get this argument. Sure, some did reach old age but we are way more interested in what percentage of them it was

Assume half of babies die in childbirth or by age 3. Assume another half die before they reach 25. Even assume that another half die before age 60. That means there are still tribal elders that can pass on information and educate the small children they take care of while parents are out getting food. It's a huge deal for a species based on cultural learning.

Re: Elephants Rarely Get Cancer, Now We Know Why (2015)

#39

Post by baq »

dean177 wrote: post #36
sek wrote: post #33

Just a hypothesis I thought of: A lot of cancer cells are developed because of constant background radiation, if you get older you just were exposed to more of it. Elephants have a much higher volume to be affected by it, so just from an evolutionary perspective they had to develop a better resistance. The ones who got cancer early couldn't reproduce as well. Does that make sense? Or does the article say exactly that…

Why not have a read and find out?

Validating your hypotheses? How quaint!

Re: Elephants Rarely Get Cancer, Now We Know Why (2015)

#40

Post by dEnigma »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #31
Sniffnoy wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're talking about genetic therapies that would make cells less prone to mutating into cancerous cells. This would have no effect on cells that are already cancerous, introduced from an outside source.

I read the article. It says this gene actively promotes apoptosis -- cell death -- in defective cells. I mean, I guess it would depend on how you are introducing the gene. How many cells it is getting into. But if it causes defective cells to suicide, why would it matter where the defect is coming from? I don't think we really have a good handle on what causes cancer. I suspect more cancer is due to some infectious a…

What the parent means is that in the Tasmanian devils' case it's the cancerous cells of another animal which are transmitted, not some kind of virus or similar that introduces genetic damage in the host. Since the improved/strengthened cell death mechanism introduced by the therapy would only affect your own cells (as the introduced cells wouldn't have the altered genes), there would be no change to the cancerousness of the transmitted cells.
Post reply on HN