CRISPR tech selectively shreds cancer cells, including "undruggable" cancers

Post by sydd » Sat, Jun 13, 2026, 1:10 PM UTC

r58lf wrote: post #146

himata4113 wrote: post #129

Does anyone know a website where I can see/read of how many cancers (and their variants) we've effectively solved, have drugs to negate their effects, have experimental drugs for and uncurable cancers? I think that graph would be awe inspiring looking at the past decade of advancements. What's more crazy is that we're slowly going from millenia, to decades, to likely years in the near future from being presented a bi…

It's not as great as you might think, despite all the stories you see like this one. That's because most of the stories are in cells (this one) or mice. The big success story, about 20 years old now, is testicular cancer. You can have metastatic testicular cancer with tumors all over your body (like Lance Armstrong had) and they can cure it. They use platinum based chemotherapy and it's not really well understood why…

Post by manmal » Sat, Jun 13, 2026, 1:25 PM UTC

spligak wrote: post #50

ordinaryradical wrote: post #32

CRISPR is an extremely overhyped approach which found a marketing engine via popular science. There is 1 FDA approved CRISPR therapy as compared to 7 for AAV and 7 for Lentivirus. Counting all viral vector therapies that have been approved, we’re sitting at 19 approved therapies versus 1 for CRISPR. I think CRISPR ideas in a lab are just an easy way into the mainstream press, but viral vector delivery is the real fut…

You're correct about CRISPR Cas9. The off-target affects are difficult to manage. The paper describes Cas12a2. This is a different mechanism with discovery origins in - of all things - agriculture. It does not attempt in any way to reprogram cells. It uses a guide protein to locate a specific mutation with exacting precision and, when it activates, unleashes total destruction of the cell. The implications of Cas12a2…

Post by alexey-salmin » Sat, Jun 13, 2026, 1:59 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #76

MontyCarloHall wrote: post #70

The idea of using CRISPR/Cas to detect tumor-specific mutations that aren't necessarily oncogenic and then kill the cell is not a new one [0, 1, 2]. However, previous studies used Cas9, which just damages the DNA at the target site; this uses Cas12a2, which is far more destructive because it shreds the chromatin in the cell once activated by detecting the target sequence. As with any cancer treatment, it's likely the…

But cancer isn't an organism. Cancer cells in any specific individual may evolve that way, but "human cancers" as a group will not. (The only way they could is by evolving human DNA, but "survival of the fittest" pushes the opposite direction for that.)

Post by diordiderot » Sat, Jun 13, 2026, 2:51 PM UTC

mattlondon wrote: post #108

sssilver wrote: post #5

What economic / political model would cause the society to prioritize this over adtech? It seems so unsettling that brilliant human minds are trying hard, every day, to figure out how to make it impossible to bypass watching ads on YouTube, instead of helping cure cancer.

I said it elsewhere but I'll say it here - we need one of the top 10 richest people in the world - the Bezos, the Musks etc - to suddenly get very interested at a personal level about cancer treatment. Then the money will flow.

Post by MontyCarloHall » Sat, Jun 13, 2026, 4:17 PM UTC

amluto wrote: post #194

MontyCarloHall wrote: post #70

The idea of using CRISPR/Cas to detect tumor-specific mutations that aren't necessarily oncogenic and then kill the cell is not a new one [0, 1, 2]. However, previous studies used Cas9, which just damages the DNA at the target site; this uses Cas12a2, which is far more destructive because it shreds the chromatin in the cell once activated by detecting the target sequence. As with any cancer treatment, it's likely the…

Surely a far simpler way to evolve resistance would be a trivial mutation in the p53 transcript that the guide RNA is looking for.