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

Why cancer cells waste so much energy

news.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 199 posts

Re: Why cancer cells waste so much energy

#71

Post by dnautics »

excannuck wrote: post #53
wittyreference wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is a relatively new theory saying that malignant, metastatic cancer cells behave like single cell organisms, and that cancer basically represents an unwanted return to our genetic roots It's not close to even 'relatively' being new. I was giving cancer talks that made mention of it back when I worked in cancer bio, just about 16 years ago now. I didn't come up with it, and it wasn't new then. I used it in tal…

Since you were a cancer researcher in a previous life, may I ask you a question I thought of commenting on another's comment? If cancer cells have high metabolic requirements, couldn't you attack them by: 1. lowering the caloric intake of the patient 2. Making the glucose the patient intakes mildly radioactive, say with a beta or an alpha emitter [1]. As the patient is strictly kept on a low caloric diet, the radioac…

[1] Say replacing the hydrogens in glucose with tritium

That's part of the problem. Think you can come up with a synthesis of glucose that replaces the nonlabile hydrogens with tritium, is doable on the days scale, repurifiable for human consumption and mass producable on-site at a hospital?

For reference ($900/20Ci): https://www.perkinelmer.com/product/glucose-d-3-3h-hplc-puri...

Re: Why cancer cells waste so much energy

#72

Post by jrockway »

inglor_cz wrote: post #11
deskamess wrote: post #2

So the cancer cells went with the non-blocking, albeit slower algorithm. With aerobic, pipelines could get filled with ATP and end up blocking the essential NAD+. So the optimization was a loosely decoupled slower fermentation process over the faster aerobic process. Back pressure avoided and all that. So tempting to go with analogies we are familiar with.

There is a relatively new theory saying that malignant, metastatic cancer cells behave like single cell organisms, and that cancer basically represents an unwanted return to our genetic roots; multicellular organisms used to be single cell organisms a billion years ago and the original genes might carry on within our DNA until today. But they should be switched off. Once they are switched on, the cells will stop coop…

So someone left in a bunch of legacy code and nobody knows which combination of feature flags fully turns it off? At least if we cure cancer we can use whatever we learned to make programming a little easier.

Re: Why cancer cells waste so much energy

#73

Post by calebkaiser »

majkinetor wrote: post #37
calebkaiser wrote: post #30

The research around NAD+ production and cancer proliferation may also give some causal explanation--or at least, a place to start looking--for the correlation between B vitamin supplementation (edit: folic acid, specifically) and increased cancer rates/fatalities in certain high-risk populations: https://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20091117/folic-acid-b12-ma...

Not B vitamins, but folic acid (just one of them). Folic acid is required for stable DNA, something that cancer doesn't need at all (it needs mutations for plasticity). Its also needed for DNA production, but many more cells need it, those that have short lifespan - cells lining the stomach for example, sperm cells, some immune cells etc.

Good point--I amended my original comment to specify folic acid.

What you're saying about stable DNA makes sense. I'm curious, though, if the supplementation helps the body generate more NAD+ (relative to someone with a deficiency), and if that could help cancer proliferate in its earliest stages (hence why the correlation is most pronounced in people already likely to develop cancer--smokers).

Re: Why cancer cells waste so much energy

#74

Post by majkinetor »

calebkaiser wrote: post #73
majkinetor wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not B vitamins, but folic acid (just one of them). Folic acid is required for stable DNA, something that cancer doesn't need at all (it needs mutations for plasticity). Its also needed for DNA production, but many more cells need it, those that have short lifespan - cells lining the stomach for example, sperm cells, some immune cells etc.

Good point--I amended my original comment to specify folic acid. What you're saying about stable DNA makes sense. I'm curious, though, if the supplementation helps the body generate more NAD+ (relative to someone with a deficiency), and if that could help cancer proliferate in its earliest stages (hence why the correlation is most pronounced in people already likely to develop cancer--smokers).

That is the whole problem - everything that benefits your body, benefits cancer and vice-versa. Cancer forms all the time - body should handle it when functioning correctly (via immune system).

NAD is essential for many functions, especially longevity as sirtuins require it for proper function.

As far as I know only massive Vitamin C doses uniquely influence cancer in negative manner and get pretty much no effect on non cancer cells. Massive vitamin C infusions (which work via mechanism similar to chemotherapy) while can't cure cancer per se, have potential to make life span and quality of life much longer (toward chronic disease).

Re: Why cancer cells waste so much energy

#75

Post by majkinetor »

rsync wrote: post #69
tluyben2 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what is 'allowed'? Because I have been seeing 'low calories' (fruits/carrot juice etc) to nothing, even no water to make sure your digestive system does not trigger at all. I know no-one knows this for sure, but what is the current theory?

The idea would be to have zero caloric inputs. So water and coffee or tea (without milk, of course) would be fine. You're trying to avoid an insulin response and firing up the entire machinery of digestion. I think it's non-controversial to say that this starves the cancer cells. Perhaps less certainly we can also say that digestion demands a lot of resources and is an interrupt for a lot of other processes. When you…

Not zero. Fat has zero effect on insulin. You need to limit carbs and proteins.

Re: Why cancer cells waste so much energy

#77

Post by chmod600 »

captaincrunch wrote: post #33
whalesalad wrote: post #19

I’m curious to see how fasting might influence cancer treatment. I know in other parts of the world it is seen as a legitimate treatment, while also potentially considered to be a hippy dippy homeopathic treatment. Anecdotally it seems you can starve certain cancers to death pretty easily by severely limiting your caloric intake. I sense a relationship between that and this study.

No medical experience, other than as a patient... however I read the body can live up to two months without food (but with adequate water). If you managed to survive longer than the cancer cells, wouldn't they just come back after defeat? Doesn't this stem from DNA?

Dumb question: why two months? Doesn't it depend on your fat reserves?

If you are 350 pounds, can't you just not eat until you are 150 and be fine? (I am not suggesting that this is true or that anyone should try it; I don't know and I am asking the question.)

Re: Why cancer cells waste so much energy

#78

Post by majkinetor »

foxhop wrote: post #9

At the end of the day life is a series of ever complex systems of inputs and outputs. I'm not surprised by the findings and the resolution to this paradox. When we look at apparent inefficiencies of life systems (singletons and complete systems) we have to take into account setting and environmental factors as well as the various layers of abstraction. Looking down at cancer (similar to a defect in software) and ques…

> life is a series of ever complex systems of inputs and outputs.

That changes dynamically depending on environmental changes. Basically infinite plasticity. Not something we have in our human engineering.

Re: Why cancer cells waste so much energy

#79

Post by chmod600 »

whalesalad wrote: post #19

I’m curious to see how fasting might influence cancer treatment. I know in other parts of the world it is seen as a legitimate treatment, while also potentially considered to be a hippy dippy homeopathic treatment. Anecdotally it seems you can starve certain cancers to death pretty easily by severely limiting your caloric intake. I sense a relationship between that and this study.

Would the supposed benefits of fasting happen right away, or only after your fat reserves start to deplete?

Re: Why cancer cells waste so much energy

#80

Post by majkinetor »

jgilias wrote: post #31

Very interesting. Another result showing how increased NAD+ levels 'benefit' cancer cells casting a shadow on the idea of NAD+ boosting supplementation to increase healthspan and lifespan. But then, it's not like this means that heightened NAD+ levels cause cancer. Just that it is plausible that it makes it more aggressive, once you have it.

Why doubt?

It only proves that supplements work as indented in prolonging eycariotic cell life.

Its just that you don't want everything in your body to be boosted, just some - cancer is just one of those, you don't want various constituents of your body flora influenced as well, like parasites, harmful microbiota etc.

Post reply on HN