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

New cancer therapy holds potential to switch off major cancer types

princeton.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 111 posts

Re: New cancer therapy holds potential to switch off major cancer types

#61

Post by headmelted »

danachow wrote: post #54
perl4ever wrote: post #51

"MTDH was amplified — meaning it produced MTDH proteins at abnormally high levels compared to normal cells — in 30 to 40% of tumor samples" That doesn't sound great, unless the 30-40% was only and all of the metastatic type. My cynicism leads me to think if the news was that good, they would clearly state it. Also, I read this: "for some, maybe five, 10, 15, 20 years later, they’ll have a recurrence, often as metasta…

Curing 30 to 40% of a population is still a big win.

Does it even mean this though?

If you’ve attacked 30%-40% of the tumours in each patient, no-one is cured.

Re: New cancer therapy holds potential to switch off major cancer types

#62

Post by 0x1062 »

EMM_386 wrote: post #14

> 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…

You're challenging someone with 15 years experience studying this particular gene... by quoting Wikipedia?

Re: New cancer therapy holds potential to switch off major cancer types

#63

Post by eecc »

EMM_386 wrote: post #14

> 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…

Might be important for sustained metabolism, but it might be eliminated for long enough to starve the disease.

I don’t know, but I do know the reality provides more combinations than I can imagine, especially when presented with binary and mutually exclusive scenarios.

Re: New cancer therapy holds potential to switch off major cancer types

#64

Post by manmal »

yazaddaruvala wrote: post #48
EMM_386 wrote: post #14

> 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…

Disclaimer: I’m not in these fields but I am curious enough about how the mechanisms work at a high level that I feel confident about the rest of this post. Two things to keep in mind: 1. Biology has never selected genes to maximize longevity, only to maximize healthy breeding. There are very likely tons of genes that make sense as a growing child but are harmful at a later age, e.g. a post menopause/vasectomy adult…

Adding to point 2, gene therapy‘s effects seem to wear off after a couple of years.

Re: New cancer therapy holds potential to switch off major cancer types

#65

Post by inglor_cz »

Retric wrote: post #23
bedobi wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know nothing about biology, medicine or evolution, but I don't think that's how it works. Lots of people inherit and pass on all kinds of bad genes that do terrible things to them, even kill them. And for such people, switching them off would be better pretty much irrespective of any side effects. (to the degree there even are any side effects at all)

It’s one thing for a “bad” gene to stick around for a few generations or even spread through a species. It’s wildly different for a “bad” gene to be shared by species who’s common ancestor was 60+ million years ago. On that timescale anything conserved is doing something useful.

Useful, yes, but for whom? Not necessarily the individual. The ultimate goal of the genes is to propagate themselves, possibly in another body.

In the contemporary research of aging, the hypothesis that "aging is actually at least partly a programmed process and some genes useful in youth may turn against us later" is taken seriously. There seems to be an intriguing negative correlation between age of sexual maturity and lifespan in mammalian species.

Re: New cancer therapy holds potential to switch off major cancer types

#66

Post by thornjm »

roscoebeezie wrote: post #28
thornjm wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neo: “Are you trying to tell me that I can alter DNA?” Morpheus: “no Neo, I’m trying to tell you that when you’re ready you won’t have to” Altering the DNA is unnecessary if you can control the expression of genes or add additional genetic material later in the DNA->RNA->protein process. mRNA vaccines are already a great example of this. Another example might be the cystic fibrosis therapy Trikafta.

Disclaimer: I’m not a scientist, but I want to be. For things like cancer cells which from a cell surface perspective, can look a lot like healthy cells, I don’t know how one only modifies DNA/RNA expression in only cancer cells. It would have to be all cells with maybe some cellular diagnosis logic in the DNA/RNA itself. Even then cancer evolves. It would have to done multiple times with something like cell descende…

Targeting doesn’t have to occur at the cell surface does it?

Perhaps something like introducing tumour suppressor genes to every cell. They’ll have no effect on healthy cells yet detect “badness” in cancerous cells and terminate them.

Re: New cancer therapy holds potential to switch off major cancer types

#67

Post by oleander73 »

steve76 wrote: post #29
xiphias2 wrote: post #21

What takes years to develop for the human trials to start? Is it about optimizing the delivery system, or finding the right targets to test on in bigger animals first? There are so many people closecto dying in cancer, that finding volunteers for a Phase 1 test should be easy.

From the article: "yet it doesn’t seem to be important for normal development" Gene space is huge. My cancer is cured, but now I'm dying of mange. So that's why that mouse kept licking itself. Big ask for someone else. They have trouble getting blood thinners, statins and beta blockers right. And there's no genetics there. It's stuff people ate out in the woods for hundreds of thousands of years. > There are so many…

Agreed (except the part about the patient paying for clinical trials). After I got diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer last year I was asked to participate in a immunotherapy trial. I declined as a wasn't about to spend the next two years (that could very well be my last) going to the hospital every three weeks to be poked and prodded.

Re: New cancer therapy holds potential to switch off major cancer types

#69

Post by oleander73 »

xiphias2 wrote: post #21

What takes years to develop for the human trials to start? Is it about optimizing the delivery system, or finding the right targets to test on in bigger animals first? There are so many people closecto dying in cancer, that finding volunteers for a Phase 1 test should be easy.

In my (unpopular) opinion trials for people with incurable cancer are quite predatory. You are supposed to participate to help science, not yourself. But in reality many people desperately cling to anything that gives them hope.

Re: New cancer therapy holds potential to switch off major cancer types

#70

Post by nindalf »

0x1062 wrote: post #62
EMM_386 wrote: post #14

> 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…

You're challenging someone with 15 years experience studying this particular gene... by quoting Wikipedia?

“Do your own research”
Post reply on HN