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."

[spanalot]

"Just look at the settlement with the states. "

Liawyers have to eat , too!

[spanalot]

"It always made me laugh that there was a scientific debate over whether constantly inhaling smoke into your lungs was unhealthy."

But it does actually reduce lung cancer and breast cancer and MS and Lou Gehrigs disease in moderation.

[spanalot]

"Lung cancer rates are higher among smokers, period."

Not true if you ar a uranium miner - those that smoked less than 10 a day had less lung cancer than nonsmokers

[Smokin' Joe]

We have liberals, what more do you want?

[rfreedom4u]

I hope it gets more publicity. Cancer has gone on long enough. Maybe it will knock Hitlery out of the media spotlight.

Remember, it's Bush's fault. (sarc)

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Could be like 10 years, Clinical trials with people have three stages,...real treatment on real patients starts at stage III....as I remember it....

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks!

[Protagoras]

Right, but what's the point of the comment?

[Protagoras]

Add "arguing without a point" to your list of things you like to do.

[sten]

I agree that China doesn't care about it's people, and therefore may not work on the solution. But it would only take the folks at the top to wake up one day and say "hey.. let's do something the US won't..." and then a cure may be in the mix.

Having witnessed the atrocious conditions of American military cancer facilities, I can tell you that it needs a LOT of work. It may even be better to shut down the VAs and push the money saved into insurance plans with commericial doctors. That way, the soldiers could get top notch care and the government could demand better pricing due to the volume.

[Williams]

Sadly my recollection and continuing inmpression is that VA hospitals are definitely not top calibre. Just another example of a missing chunk in the national conscience.

[Smokin' Joe]

Yep you missed it. Completely and totally missed it, over your head, gone, out past the cheap seats of your 'lofty' brain.

Once again.. If the research money that has been expended on all the redundant studies which reached the preordained conclusion that 'cigarettes are bad' for you had been spent on research into finding a cure for cancer, we might even be there by now.

Not cut and paste butchery, not zapping someone with radiation, and not poisoning the person, but killing the specific cells which are multiplying uncontrollably.

Find a cancer cure, then it does not matter if you get cancer, and it does not matter why. It could even be from a virus. Get it???

Whether it be from the formaldehyde in your carpet, the flouride in your water, picking your nose in the freeway, the cause does not matter because you can be cured.

Nope you are so hung up on feeling all superior about having quit smoking YOU try to distort my point as being pro tobacco, rather than pro cancer cure.

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).

[AFreeBird]

Sorry, I forgot to quote part of your post to Smokin' Joe.

I have a life, and so do you, for now. But don't worry, you're smart for smoking. Just think how smart you will seem to your family and loved ones as they watch you in hospice.

The point I was making that we're all dying. And in fact, one of the primary ingredients required to live - oxygen - is also one of the most corrosive elements in our atmosphere.

The #1 cause of death, is LIFE! (go figure)

[Getready]

Huh? No stem cells were needed?

[Getready]

doncha know?
Life is sexually transmitted and is fatal.
Sheesh....

[whd23]

All three stages of a clinical trial involve testing on people. Stage III is where "they" are testing for efficacy.

NCI

[Smokin' Joe]

If the money was spent on cancer research that has been spent in courtrooms, all mankind would have benefited.

Thank you for 'getting it'.

Add in the money spent on doing computer simulations to decree "secondhand" smoke as evil, and all the redudnant 'studies' done to further villify smoking, and there would have been one heck of a research budget for biochemistry and microbiology to find ways to interrupt the mechanisms of the disease, once in progress.

Unfortunately, some here are so hung up on arguing about smoking, they can't get at the essential point, that of funding for research to cure all cancer, as opposed to rabidly targeting one source of carcinogens.

[Smokin' Joe]

You assume all the money spent in campaigns against smoking would go to a cure for cancer.

Nope. People are not that focused. But even half would be a tremendous improvement, don't you think?

[Protagoras]

Once again.. If the research money that has been expended on all the redundant studies which reached the preordained conclusion that 'cigarettes are bad' for you had been spent on research into finding a cure for cancer, we might even be there by now.

Once again, you are wrong. But nice try at turning your opinion into fact. Sorry though, it won't work.

Find a cancer cure, then it does not matter if you get cancer, and it does not matter why. It could even be from a virus. Get it???

Cancer is only one of the issues, as I have pointed out twice already, but you don't GET IT.

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).

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

And please don't pretend you aren't advocating smoking, you certainly are, down to your very screen name. Misery loves company.

[Enchante]

Most cancers (there are 100+ types of cancer, depending on how you count them) have nothing to do with tobacco use and have little if any relationship to personal choice or lifestyle issues. Yes, there are some possible correlations between obesity and some cancers, but again there is a vast array of cancers for which the patients bear little or no responsibility in any way for their plight. 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.