Live data from Hacker News

Frog-derived gut bacterium eradicates tumors in mice

thefocalpoints.com

141–150 of 207 posts

Re: Frog-derived gut bacterium eradicates tumors in mice

#141
They say:

> Outperforming chemotherapy and immunotherapy

And then later:

> As a facultative anaerobe, it preferentially accumulates within the hypoxic tumor microenvironment, where it rapidly proliferates and exerts direct cytotoxic effects while simultaneously activating a broad immune response. Within hours, tumors become infiltrated with T cells, B cells, and neutrophils, accompanied by surges in key inflammatory cytokines like TNF-α and IFN-γ.

So this is immunotherapy. Although it is clever immunotherapy. Gut bacteria doesn't usually survive long in the bloodstream because there's too much oxygen present (that's part of why it's gut bacteria, its unlikely to go all Leeroy Jenkins on the rest of the organism).

The TME is often so densely packed with growth that its less oxidative than surrounding tissue. So the bacteria that don't find a tumor don't last long enough to cause problems and the ones that do find one see it as a bit of a refuge from the problematic environment and colonize it specifically, throwing off whatever subterfuge the tumor was using to keep the immune system from getting involved.

It's a bit like throwing a brick through the window of a bank that was being quietly robbed by somebody else. The cops show up and realize they've been overlooking a separate problem.

Re: Frog-derived gut bacterium eradicates tumors in mice

#142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many things that are not either capitalism or Russia.

The grandparent of your post, however, blamed capitalism for the destruction of the environment, as though other economic systems would not do the same. So your comment isn't really that relevant if the parent to your post is just offering a counterexample. I get it, you don't like capitalism, but jumping every time capitalism is mentioned--particularly when your point isn't really relevant--doesn't really win others…

The destruction of the environment that has actually occurred in our capitalist countries has been because of capitalism.

It's like saying desktop enshittification has been caused by Microsoft. This is true in our timeline, even though if Apple had owned the desktop for 30 years they also would have enshittified it.

Re: Frog-derived gut bacterium eradicates tumors in mice

#144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The alternatives to capitalism are a wide spectrum, ranging from totalitarian dictatorship (aka central planning) all the way to free markets with sensible regulations. What they all have in common is not being capitalism, i.e. not putting power solely in the hands of the wealthiest.

> capitalism, i.e. not putting power solely in the hands of the wealthiest. This critique doesn't make sense. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. You're actually a capitalist whether you know it or not and you agree with capitalism at a rudimentary level. Your complaint about "power in the hands of the wealthiest" is a matter of government dysfunction, not the economic system. In fact, the…

Private ownership of the means of production is one salient feature of capitalism, but it's not the definition. Capitalism is when capital controls everything, more-or-less.

Re: Frog-derived gut bacterium eradicates tumors in mice

#145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The alternatives to capitalism are a wide spectrum, ranging from totalitarian dictatorship (aka central planning) all the way to free markets with sensible regulations. What they all have in common is not being capitalism, i.e. not putting power solely in the hands of the wealthiest.

Unregulated capitalism does not exist anywhere on this planet, and the US is in fact quite a bureaucratic country, though less so than many others. "putting power solely in the hands of the wealthiest." Do you think it is? Then let some of the wealthiest try to obtain a permit in downtown SF for a mere block of flats, the likes of which used to be built by the thousands 100 years ago. If it takes less than a decade,…

The wealthiest are having no problem acquiring permits for data centers. Why would they want flats when DCs are so much more profitable? Last century it was highways.

Re: Frog-derived gut bacterium eradicates tumors in mice

#146
post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't know about mice, but rats more or less have a 50% tumor/cancer chance if they really do get to live 1+ years. I think for some lines it goes up to 90%+.

Every rat (4 now) I've owned except one has died of cancer. Or at least, they died with cancer, I'm not a veterinarian. The one that didn't got the flu or something at 6 months and died of some respiratory issue.

How did you diagnose the cancer?

Re: Frog-derived gut bacterium eradicates tumors in mice

#147
post #84

We are destroying ecosystems so fast that there will be no frogs and we will regret it. The same with all the nature

There will, in fact, continue to be frogs. One theory of where posts like this come from: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2527316123

If its all just people trying to be different, why is it always the same refrains in the same way?

Re: Frog-derived gut bacterium eradicates tumors in mice

#148

Previus discussion (from the university press release) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46306894 (498 points | 6 months ago | 140 comments) I'll rehash my comment They used mice, because they are good for early tries. The researchers had 9 bacterias and only 1 was successful. Experiments in mice are cheaper and have less ethical problems than experiments in humans. (Hey! They even injected the cancer cells in mic…

> and have less ethical problems than experiments in humans More like, what's a mouse gonna do about it?

Wait patiently until their planet-sized computer gives them the answer they've been waiting for and then take their revenge

Re: Frog-derived gut bacterium eradicates tumors in mice

#150
post #94
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>For a Sean Connery movie it was bizarre Buddy, if you're trying to tell me it's weirder than Darby O'Gill and the Little People, I am going to need more than Sir Connery in a ponytail.

Yeah, with a movie like that in his credits, it seems a miracle he was ever selected to be James Bond. His radar for picking great movies was equally bad as it was good.

Ha, yeah. Fortunately for him, Connery did James Bond first, then later did Zardoz and Highlander.
Post reply on HN