Cancer cell 'executioner' found ~ synthetic molecule which caused cancer cells to self-destruct.

BBC ^ | Sunday, 27 August 2006, 23:51 GMT 00:51 UK | BBC staff

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Cancer cell 'executioner' found

Cancer cells keep dividing because the cell suicide process fails

Scientists have developed a way of "executing" cancer cells.

Healthy cells have a built-in process which means they commit suicide if something is wrong, a process which fails in cancer cells.

The University of Illinois team created a synthetic molecule which caused cancer cells to self-destruct.

Cancer experts said the study, in Nature Chemical Biology, offered "exciting possibilities" for new ways of treating the disease.

These findings present an exciting new therapeutic strategy for the treatment of some cancers Dr Michael Olsen, Cancer Research UK

One of the hallmarks of cancer cells is their resistance to the body's cell suicide signals, which allow them to survive and develop into tumours.

All cells contain a protein called procaspase-3, which the body should be able to turn into caspase-3 - an executioner enzyme.

But this transformation does not happen in cancer cells, even though certain types, such as colon cancer, leukaemia, skin and liver cancers paradoxically have very high levels of procaspase-3.

Healthy cells unaffected

The researchers examined more than 20,000 structurally different synthetic compounds to see if any could trigger procaspase-3 to develop into caspase-3.

They found the molecule PAC-1 did trigger the transformation, and cancer cells from mice and from human tumours could be prompted to self-destruct - a process called apoptosis.

The more procaspase-3 a cancer cell had, the less of the molecule was needed.

Healthy cells, such as white blood cells, were found to be significantly less affected by the addition of PAC-1 because they had much lower levels of procaspase-3, so cell-suicide could not be triggered.

When the scientists tested PAC-1 on cancerous and non-cancerous tissue from the same person, the tumour cells were 2,000-fold more sensitive to PAC-1.

Since different levels of procaspase-3 were found in the cell lines studied, the researchers suggest some patients would be more responsive to this therapy than others, so the it might one day be possible to tailor treatments to individual patients.

'Exciting'

Professor Paul Hergenrother, who led the research, said: "This is the first in what could be a host of organic compounds with the ability to directly activate executioner enzymes.

"The potential effectiveness of compounds such as PAC-1 could be predicted in advance, and patients could be selected for treatment based on the amount of procaspase-3 found in their tumour cells."

Cancer Research UK expert Dr Michael Olson, who is based at the Beatson Institute for Cancer Research in Glasgow, said: "These findings present an exciting new therapeutic strategy for the treatment of some cancers.

"It remains to be seen which, if any tumour types consistently express elevated procaspase-3. That will tell us how many patients could potentially benefit from the drug.

"Clinical trials will be needed to confirm whether procaspase-3 causes any adverse effects in humans."

[Protagoras]

So, since everyone is going to die anyway, health issues do not matter?

I'm just trying to find out exactly what point you are trying to make.

I assume that you do everything you feel like doing with no regard to it's effects on your health, since you are already doomed.

[Cvengr]

Of course, on the other hand, if the body becomes resistant to the new drug and normal body cells begin to self destruct instead, the patient might dissolve into a pool of jelly in minutes.

[Smokin' Joe]

Check the title of the thread, A cancer cure is what we were discussing before you took it to FReeper Island.

My remark about wasted funds was in response to post number 3: "Man this would be some good news if this progresses....the money should flow for this research...." by Earnest at the Beach.

It's about the funding.

The screen name is a nickname that goes back over 30 years. You do not have a clue to its origin.

All I have advocated in this thread is spending the money, some of that money taken from smokers (ironically under the auspices of offsetting smoker's health care costs) on research to find a cure for cancer, by which everyone would benefit.

I take it you are at odds with that goal, otherwise you would not continue to distort my statements or completely fabricate arguments which were not stated.

The rest is the product of your desire to debate tobacco, which was definitely not my point.

[Protagoras]

My original comment is on the thread, if you didn't want to respond to it, you shouldn't have. You can go back and review all of the posts we have exchanged to see where things went wrong if you want.

My point is, and was, cancer is only one of the consequences of smoking. And if it was cured, it would still be stupid to smoke. And selfish. And unfortunately some people would start smoking if they heard that they got a pass in that regard on the cancer part.

Then they could die of emphysema or heart disease. They could suffer more illnesses of other kinds as well.

[Concerned]

LIBERTY OR DEATH WROTE: "...the "Cancer Industry" does not want simple solutions, nor do they seek them.

I have had friends and relatives diagnosed with cancer, and LIBERTY is 1,000% correct---"the 'Cancer Industry' does not want simple solutions, nor do they seek them!" [emphasis mine]

I would add that the "Cancer Industry" ALSO does not want the public to ever find out about the already available simple solutions!

We all have cancer cells!!! It's just that most of us don't have a problem with them because our immune system works property to identify the cancer cells and destroy them.

To put it bluntly...It's the NUTRITION, stupid!

My sister is a Certified Clinical Nutritionist and she has a Masters Degree in Nutrition with a Minor in Biochemistry.

A few months ago, she told me about a Tongan sea vegetable called Limu Moui (or Limu) which contains fucoidan. She said it is the best, most complete source of nutrition she has ever come across.

A national magazine called Breakthroughs in Health is devoting its entire October issue on the benefits of Limu and fucoidan. I understand it should be in Barnes & Noble Bookstores all over the country by 09/15/2006.

Fucoidan has been the subject of over 650 unsolicited, peer-reviewed, medical and scientific studies, and has been dubbed a "Super Nutrient."

Although I am not a medical person, I spent hours reading through many of the studies, some of which are from Johns Hopkins and Harvard.

Fucoidan seems to be extremely effective in enabling your body's own immune system to identify and deal with numerous ailments. Some of the more notable studies involve fucoidan's effects with cancer, HIV, diabetes, etc.

Fucoidan is the primary ingredient in Limu. It is my understanding that no land-based plant contains fucoidan---it can only be found in certain sea plants.

You can find more information at the following government and non-government web sites:

http://www.PubMed.gov
PubMed.gov is a service of the National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health. (You can set the "Display" to "Abstract" and search for fucoidan by itself (661 studies). You can also include subsearches, e.g. fucoidan/cancer (53 studies), fucoidan/apoptosis (7 studies), fucoidan/heart (10 studies), fucoidan/blood pressure (4 studies), etc.

Non-government sources of info:
http://www.RealLimu.com
http://www.LimuDetails.com

[spanalot]

"Add "arguing without a point""

I'm sorry the point eluded you.

In broad terms, my point was best described by Nietzsche in "Will to Truth".

There will be a test on Monday.

[Protagoras]

I hope you pass that test, you flunked this one.

[The Old Hoosier]

the money should flow for this research....

Nope, sorry -- we need that money to murder embryos and cannibalize their cells. Too bad, cancer patients...

[The Old Hoosier]

One last time, it ain't your money and you don't get to choose how other people spend theirs.

Well, it is often taxpayer money.

[N3WBI3]

Except while certain behaviors can cause cancer abstaining from them is not a guarantee that you wont get cancer anyways..

[Protagoras]

Well, it is often taxpayer money.

And on that subject, it is improper for the federal government to spend money on either thing.

[Smokin' Joe]

Yep. Your original comment took a sentence fragment, added a question mark, and then you responded to the fabricated statement with the (for want of a better word) crap:

"Cigarettes are a stupidity meter. You can tell how stupid you are by the number you smoke."

My attempt then, as now remains one of pointing out that money which might have been better spent on biological research (with the potential to benefit everyone) has been spent on social 'programming' programs instead.

Anyone who has or will contract cancer, regardless of the cause just might see that as a waste as I do.

Have a nice day!

[Moonman62]

Thus, outside of cigarette smokers, there is no similarity between people arguing for more funding for cancer research and those who have so distorted public debates over HIV/AIDS funding, etc.

I agree, but I was responding to a smoker.

[spanalot]

"I hope you pass that test, you flunked this one."

Not really - you just refuse to realize that putting a label on something (Smoking = bad) does not mean you understand it.

[bobbyd]

bump for later

[spanalot]

"We all have cancer cells!!! It's just that most of us don't have a problem with them because our immune system works property to identify the cancer cells and destroy them.

To put it bluntly...It's the NUTRITION, stupid!"
------
Don't confuse the cancer worshippers with the facts.

[GOPJ]

We all have cancer cells!!! It's just that most of us don't have a problem with them because our immune system works property to identify the cancer cells and destroy them. To put it bluntly...It's the NUTRITION, stupid!

Years ago I had a talk with a cancer researcher and asked how they ever came up with the idea of giving people medicine that was so toxic it would cause their hair to fall out -- it was like they were poisoning people. He smiled.

This is what he said -- "Do you know how "chemotherapy" started? I said, "No - not a clue."

He said, "Some years ago there was a doctor who felt he could give his patients a healthy diet, vitamins, minerals etc. He would boost their bodies up so they could fight the cancer." And being a good researcher, he divided up a group of cancer patient into two groups (don't know if it was double blind) and gave half of them the boost, and the other half the same food but no extra vitamins or minerals etc.

And guess what happened?

There was a BIG difference in how long the people in each group lived - just like you would expect. With one exception - the group getting all the extra help, all the extra vitamins, died first.

Cancer cells grow faster, out of control, and they used up the extra "help" to multiply faster. So, the doctor switched the experiment and "poisoned" the patients. He assumed the cancer cells would take in more of the poison and die first. And that's what happened. That was the start of modern chemotherapy for cancer.

[Protagoras]

Smoking = detrimental to health.

If you don't agree with that, it is you who does not understand.

[Bogey]

One last time. Spend the money on good, basic cancer research, not pissing around with billboards and dubious computer models, but find a cure, not a remedy, a cure, something which will benefit everyone, (not just those who despite all social villification, being treated like a second-class citizen, and putting up with the tedious self-righteous rants of ex- and anti-smokers, just might take up the evil habit).

No Joe, he'll oppose anything that might benefit someone who enjoys a smoke. Even if it means sacrificing a possible cure for thousands of innocent children, who have a host of different cancers, their doctors can't explain. Much like the representative of the American Lung Association who commented years ago, they wouldn't support a vaccine to cure lung cancer, because then people wouldn't quit smoking. Screw the people that never smoked and die of lung cancer. Kind of sick.

[Protagoras]

Everything you said is a lie.