Tiny DNA circles are key drivers of cancer, study finds
med.stanford.edu
Tiny DNA circles are key drivers of cancer, study finds
1–10 of 38 posts
Re: Tiny DNA circles are key drivers of cancer, study finds
#2Re: Tiny DNA circles are key drivers of cancer, study finds
#3The role of eccDNA in cancer is not a particularly new concept. However, studies like this are important to further elucidate cancer-promoting mechanisms.
Additionally, the use of artificial eccDNA holds a lot of promise for genetic enhancement in many forms of life from humans, to livestock, to plants.
Essentially, we could create artificial chromosomes which express useful genes or have inverted repeats which deliver siRNA to silence other genes and viruses.
Similar to plasmids, except would have much larger payloads and ideally a heritable mechanism, perhaps by tethering against native chromosomes via zinc fingers, viral-encoded protein, or AT-hook motifs.
Re: Tiny DNA circles are key drivers of cancer, study finds
#4The role of eccDNA in cancer is not a particularly new concept. However, studies like this are important to further elucidate cancer-promoting mechanisms. Additionally, the use of artificial eccDNA holds a lot of promise for genetic enhancement in many forms of life from humans, to livestock, to plants. Essentially, we could create artificial chromosomes which express useful genes or have inverted repeats which deliv…
Reading this gives me an understanding for how some of my friends feel when I talk about technology.
“Make sure to set the dip switches on your SCSI drive and confirm your cable is USB 4+ PD.”
Lol
Re: Tiny DNA circles are key drivers of cancer, study finds
#5The role of eccDNA in cancer is not a particularly new concept. However, studies like this are important to further elucidate cancer-promoting mechanisms. Additionally, the use of artificial eccDNA holds a lot of promise for genetic enhancement in many forms of life from humans, to livestock, to plants. Essentially, we could create artificial chromosomes which express useful genes or have inverted repeats which deliv…
Reading this gives me an understanding for how some of my friends feel when I talk about technology. “Make sure to set the dip switches on your SCSI drive and confirm your cable is USB 4+ PD.” Lol
English Wikipedia is a surprisingly good resource.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SiDNA
So these things interfere with genetic operations in the cell, including cancerous cells. There's some evidence linked showing they enhance cancer treatments. Radiotherapy works by inducing cell and DNA damage in cancer cells, and these siDNA hurt their ability to repair themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrachromosomal_circular_DNA
Circular strands of DNA that live outside the chromosome which are those X and Y things, a condensed form of DNA. Like a little DNA module floating about in the cell. What if you could develop new modules and deliver them to people's cells via viruses or something?
Bacteria already have this capability - and more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformation_(genetics)
Some of its friends died, releasing useful plasmids into the environment? They'll just absorb it. They're like the Mega Men of microbiology. Things die and they absorb their powers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacterial_conjugation
Produce a literal pipe to transfer your antibiotic resistance super powers to your friend.
Finally:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transduction_(genetics)
Virus infects bacteria and adds its genetic material to it to make it produce copies. Those copies end up carrying some bacterial DNA in them though. This leads to some viruses turning into a DNA injection mechanism that transfer plasmids to other bacteria. Perhaps scientists will figure out how to use them to deliver DNA to our cells instead.
Re: Tiny DNA circles are key drivers of cancer, study finds
#6if you are a cancer researcher, please share research assumptions that are debunked yet still commonly held.
i’m compiling a list.
these must be empirically supported.
for instance, i believe negative conclusions based on knockout studies are misleading, but this is not empirically proven and would not qualify. (if you knock out a fire alarm and the house still functions, saying the alarm serves no purpose is flawed.)
Re: Tiny DNA circles are key drivers of cancer, study finds
#7The role of eccDNA in cancer is not a particularly new concept. However, studies like this are important to further elucidate cancer-promoting mechanisms. Additionally, the use of artificial eccDNA holds a lot of promise for genetic enhancement in many forms of life from humans, to livestock, to plants. Essentially, we could create artificial chromosomes which express useful genes or have inverted repeats which deliv…
Is this ecDNA of similar size to the circular DNA of the mitochondria?
This seems like a reversion of the form of DNA to a prokaryotic state.
Re: Tiny DNA circles are key drivers of cancer, study finds
#8[deleted]
Re: Tiny DNA circles are key drivers of cancer, study finds
#9The role of eccDNA in cancer is not a particularly new concept. However, studies like this are important to further elucidate cancer-promoting mechanisms. Additionally, the use of artificial eccDNA holds a lot of promise for genetic enhancement in many forms of life from humans, to livestock, to plants. Essentially, we could create artificial chromosomes which express useful genes or have inverted repeats which deliv…
Cre-lox recombination is effectively payload-unlimited. Why create an artificial chromosome when inheritance is intended when you can just add to a current chromosome?
> perhaps by tethering against native chromosomes via zinc fingers, viral-encoded protein, or AT-hook motifs.
It sounds complex. Partition loci would be sufficient for inheritance in both offspring cells.
Re: Tiny DNA circles are key drivers of cancer, study finds
#10if you are a cancer researcher, please share research assumptions that are debunked yet still commonly held. i’m compiling a list. these must be empirically supported. for instance, i believe negative conclusions based on knockout studies are misleading, but this is not empirically proven and would not qualify. (if you knock out a fire alarm and the house still functions, saying the alarm serves no purpose is flawed.…
A knock-out study will work as well as the precise definition and measurement of the phenotype you're looking for will allow. The point you're making is well understood by geneticist. There's about 22K genes in the genome, if your typical genetic screen returns a list of a 0 to 1K positives, no one is claiming that the 21K genes are absolutely uninvolved in the phenotype.