11–20 of 111 posts
Here's the link to the clinical trial https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04836195?term=pclx-00...
Edit: removed a duplicated word
ctrl+f >in mice
I'm not fully buying that.
If you look at "Function" on Wikipedia, it seems to have some important roles, including angiogenesis (which is still important outside of cancer). It's not like evolution would select for something that is useless outside of helping cancer.
I'd be curious what the side effects are in humans. How can it be claimed that it can be eliminated with "no obvious side effects" when they are still years away from human trials?
"Because while it’s important to show that mice born without MTDH are resistant to cancer, that doesn’t help patients, whose genes can’t be rewritten ." ...yet Wonder if we'll look back at this and think "how quaint".
Actually, we can: I think we already have working gene therapy for several diseases. Just look at the current list on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_therapy#Treatment_of_gene...
> MTDH is important for most major human cancers, not important for normal cells, and it can be eliminated with no obvious side effects I'm not fully buying that. If you look at "Function" on Wikipedia, it seems to have some important roles, including angiogenesis (which is still important outside of cancer). It's not like evolution would select for something that is useless outside of helping cancer. I'd be curious…
The drug doesn't disable the gene but make the protein unable to do its function by preventing the binding with another protein. If it can make cancer chronic disease, any side effects it may have will probably be less important then death.
> MTDH is important for most major human cancers, not important for normal cells, and it can be eliminated with no obvious side effects I'm not fully buying that. If you look at "Function" on Wikipedia, it seems to have some important roles, including angiogenesis (which is still important outside of cancer). It's not like evolution would select for something that is useless outside of helping cancer. I'd be curious…
I agree that "no obvious side effects" seems excessive if you interpret that as the expected result in humans. Still, on paper this looks much more specific that anything we have.
> MTDH is important for most major human cancers, not important for normal cells, and it can be eliminated with no obvious side effects I'm not fully buying that. If you look at "Function" on Wikipedia, it seems to have some important roles, including angiogenesis (which is still important outside of cancer). It's not like evolution would select for something that is useless outside of helping cancer. I'd be curious…
So what is, or are, the "small-molecule inhibitors"? (I don't have access to the full texts of the papers.) Also, what makes them confident these inhibitors "suppress breast cancer progression and metastasis"? Does this mean only in the mouse model? Because the original article says "will be ready for human trials in a few years".
Inhibitors block some biological pathway, which in general could be any number of things.
In this case the drug blocks a specific protein that we believe cancer cells specifically need, meaning the cancer cells might fail faster than the rest of your body if we inhibit it.