Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cancer breakthrough stuns scientific world
itechnology ^ | September 05 2002 at 08:26PM | Steve Connor

Posted on 09/10/2002 7:16:04 PM PDT by mjp

Cancer breakthrough stuns scientific world

September 05 2002 at 08:26PM

By Steve Connor

Scientists have successfully destroyed cervical cancer cells using a revolutionary new technique which is being hailed as one of the most important developments in medicine for decades.

The technique, called RNA interference (RNAi), completely eliminated all the cancer cells growing in a test tube yet left healthy cells unharmed. The scientists called the results "absolutely remarkable".

As the findings were released on Thursday, it emerged that another team of researchers were planning the world's first clinical trial of the technique, this time on a group of Aids patients. The trial is expected to begin within the next two years.

'I've been in research a long time and this was fantastic' RNAi works by "silencing" harmful genes. Excited scientists believe it could be used to turn off the genes of infectious viruses or human tumour cells that have turned malignant, rendering them harmless.

A study published yesterday in the journal Oncogene demonstrated that RNAi efficiently switched off the genes of the human papiloma virus, which triggers cervical cancer in women. All cancerous cells growing in a test tube died, leaving normal cells untouched.

Professor Jo Milner, who led the investigation at the University of York, said that in her long career as a cell biologist she had never before witnessed such a powerful anti-cancer agent which was so highly specific at targeting tumour cells.

"The successful elimination of the cancer cells, without adverse effects on normal cells, is absolutely remarkable. I've been in research a long time and this was fantastic," she said.

Milner's team targeted the RNAi against two genes of human papiloma virus. By silencing one gene, the tumour cells stopped growing. By silencing the other, all the cancer cells "committed suicide".

Because the treatment had no effect on uninfected human cells, this is strong evidence that RNAi would be unlikely to produce the harmful side-effects seen when other cancer treatments are used on patients.

Milner said she intended starting clinical trials as a potential treatment for cervical cancer within five years. Cervical cancer is the second-most-common form of female cancer, killing 1 250 British women a year.

"Our work has identified a novel agent with major therapeutic potential for the treatment, and possibly the prevention, of human cervical cancer," Milner said.

Cervical cancer is caused when human papiloma virus attacks natural proteins in the body which are vital for the suppression of cancer. RNAi effectively restores this natural cancer-suppression by attacking the virus. - Independent Foreign Service


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cancer
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-127 next last
To: mjp
Holy smoke. I heard of this idea but I didn't think it would work. Holy jumpin' mackerel!

This is, of course, only in vitro, where a number of things seem to work that end up killing the patient in vivo. But it is very promising. That it is a mechanism for apoptosis as well as gene suppression is even more exciting - there are a number of apoptosis-activators currently in clinical trials but I don't know of any that sound this promising. Oncology isn't a magazine known for hype or journalistic hysteria, either.

For those who care, the reason AIDS patients are in this is that they are a conveniently immune-suppressed population that is willing to act as human guinea pigs. I don't care how they got that way, I'm just glad they're volunteering. That is always the most difficult hurdle for treatments involving gross somatic effects, getting something approximating the human organism to act as a disease model for toxicity studies and projected dosages. Unless I'm missing something pretty big this is not a cure for AIDS, it's a potential cure for tumor cancers.

41 posted on 09/10/2002 9:42:49 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mjp
If it was so remarkable why wasn't it published in Science, Nature or New England Journal of Medicine?

Oncogene? Maybe a great journal, but first time I've ever heard of it.

42 posted on 09/10/2002 9:47:45 PM PDT by Plutarch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Plutarch
If it was so remarkable why wasn't it published in Science, Nature or New England Journal of Medicine?

Oops - I thought I'd read "Oncology." Oncogene is a much smaller mag, but it is peer-reviewed. It's part of the Nature Publishing Group, named after that eponymous parent mag. I work at a place that subscribes - I'll be checking this one out when this issue arrives.

43 posted on 09/10/2002 9:53:12 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
Give it to a pile o' patients. If they are cured the testing is complete. Next step would be over the counter.

All this neverending" clinical phase" crap is more to figure out how many more patents they can squeeze out than it is to make sure it's "safe". Safe is relative. Ever watch a drug commercial and hear the hi-speed spiel at the end of a blistering list of "side effects" you'll get?
I would say that the cancer being cured outweighs vomiting, diarrhea, stuffiness, cramps, difficulty in acheiving an erection, blah, blah, etc. ad nausam and so forth.
44 posted on 09/10/2002 9:53:30 PM PDT by ALS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill
Yes, real tissues containing real cells pose challenges for a cancer drug that a test tube full of isolated cells does not. You have to get effective levels of the drug to all the cancer cells without hurting too many of the normal cells in which the cancer is embedded. And you have to get past enzymes and other things that can deactivate the drug.
45 posted on 09/10/2002 9:57:10 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette
And vice versa?
46 posted on 09/10/2002 9:58:26 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Chemist_Geek
I believe the FDA is hopeless. There are other safe and effective options outside of government. I posted a great policy paper a while back that is a wonderful read for fellow conservatives. Please check it out.

Making Drugs Safe and Available without the FDA (Long)
47 posted on 09/10/2002 9:59:40 PM PDT by PA Engineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ALS
Give it to a pile o' patients. If they are cured the testing is complete. Next step would be over the counter.

I wish. And it isn't the FDA's fault, either. One of those patients dies and the relatives sue the company - drug companies are all big and rich, dontcha know - sue for the Big Bucks. Ain't gonna happen.

Besides, it's a long way from dropping the stuff into a suspension of cancer cells and managing to get it into the appropriate site in the body in the proper concentration, once we even figure out what that is. Shoot enough straight penicillin into a patient and you kill him. This is nowhere near ready to field yet.

48 posted on 09/10/2002 10:01:12 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: mjp
Great news! I think God would be rejoicing that someone had used their skills to a full potential!
49 posted on 09/10/2002 10:02:20 PM PDT by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vic3O3
Ping!
50 posted on 09/11/2002 6:11:58 AM PDT by dd5339
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mjp
Wonderful news for all those who are fighting cancer.
51 posted on 09/11/2002 6:14:34 AM PDT by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill
You are exactly correct. We both know why the preliminary clinical work will be done in ZA.

Not that human life is not respected there, the old British values are still intact there. Rather, it is the unreasonableness of the US legal system that stifles progress in clinical research.

Lots of US pharmaceutical research scientists work in international teams in Africa to get prelim human response data. They can proceed in unfettered manner for the most part. Their only constraint is that any treatment be affordable to the African population. This often forces them to look at natural alternatives which can be a good thing.
52 posted on 09/11/2002 6:28:56 AM PDT by Hostage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: mjp
The technique, called RNA interference (RNAi), completely eliminated all the cancer cells growing in a test tube yet left healthy cells unharmed. The scientists called the results "absolutely remarkable".

Actually, the technique is called siRNA for 'short interfering RNA'. This short interference RNA itself is a naturally-occurring defence mechanism:
RNA silencing is a eukaryotic genome defence system that involves processing of double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) into 21-26 nt, short interfering RNA (siRNA). The siRNA mediates suppression of genes corresponding to the dsRNA through targeted RNA degradation. In some plant systems there are additional silencing processes, involving systemic spread of silencing and RNA-directed methylation/transcriptional suppression of homologous genomic DNA.
--EMBO J 2002 Sep 2;21(17):4671-4679
Two classes of short interfering RNA in RNA silencing.
Hamilton A, Voinnet O, Chappell L, Baulcombe D.
So, once again, we have an example of the benefits of molecular biology's exploitation of nature.

The work left to be done to get something from an in-vitro research tool to an effective therapeutic modality is "absolutely staggering". We're only at the very beginning of the beginning.

Here is the abstract of the paper in question:
Selective silencing of mammalian gene expression has recently been achieved using short interfering RNA (siRNA). Synthetic siRNA targets homologous mRNA for degradation and the process is highly efficient. Here we demonstrate siRNA silencing of pathogenic viral gene expression. As a well characterized model we chose cervical carcinoma cells positive for human papillomavirus type 16. Over 90% of human cervical cancers are positive for papillomavirus and abnormal cell proliferation is driven by co-operative effects of viral E6 and E7 genes. We sought to silence HPV E6 and E7 gene expression using siRNAs to target the respective viral mRNAs. Our results indicate selective degradation of E6 and E7 mRNAs. Silencing was sustained for at least 4 days following a single dose of siRNA. E6 silencing induced accumulation of cellular p53 protein, transactivation of the cell cycle control p21 gene and reduced cell growth. In contrast, E7 silencing induced apoptotic cell death. HPV-negative cells appeared unaffected by the anti-viral siRNAs. Thus we demonstrate for the first time (i) that siRNA can induce selective silencing of exogenous viral genes in mammalian cells, and (ii) that the process of siRNA interference does not interfere with the recovery of cellular regulatory systems previously inhibited by viral gene expression.

53 posted on 09/11/2002 7:02:47 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill
Why discuss the HIV infected with RNAi? Simple. RNAi is a naturally occuring mechanism in the body that shuts of DNA when introduced to a double-straned RNA completment of that DNA. For instance in the case of HIV, which inserts it's genome into the cellular genome, we know the sequence of the mRNA used by HIV to manufacture, say a structural capsid protein, now if a complement of this mRNA can get into the cell, it will bind with this mRNA, creating a doublestrnded RNA molecule. Here's the RNAi part - special enzymes recognize this this doublestanded RNA and then they actively serach out the DNA complement and permantly shut if this gene. No structural protein gene - no virus.

It would work similarly in cancer to stop the production of certain cancer associated proteins.

54 posted on 09/11/2002 7:22:41 AM PDT by realpatriot71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: chachacha
I'm refering to the practicing gay's. I stand on my statement and I'm proud of it.

That's one of the strangest posts I've ever read. You seem to be thrilled that some people will die of a disease,and even claim to be proud of this? Your hatred of homosexuals is greater than your joy at a discovery that will end a long and painful illness that leads to death. VERY strange.

55 posted on 09/11/2002 8:14:56 AM PDT by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: mjp
Milner said she intended starting clinical trials as a potential treatment for cervical cancer within five years. Cervical cancer is the second-most-common form of female cancer, killing 1 250 British women a year.

wHY WAIT SO LONG. aND WHY START TESTS ON aids PATIENTS??? Sheesh, Cancer should have been cured years ago if not for billions of dollars being diverted to save Magic Johnson's et al life.

56 posted on 09/11/2002 8:18:22 AM PDT by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill
Unless I'm missing something pretty big this is not a cure for AIDS, it's a potential cure for tumor cancers.

AND if it turns out to be a cure for AIDS also,even 'mo bettah.

57 posted on 09/11/2002 8:18:23 AM PDT by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: StormEye
Five years? I'm sure there are plenty of cancer patients who would be willing to volunteer to try it now for a chance at having a normal life span.

Sorry, the government can't take the chance that the dying patients might get sick.

The government has sentenced them to death. Death by government.

58 posted on 09/11/2002 8:19:08 AM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: realpatriot71
For instance (if you already know this - forgive me) about 2 years ago during retroviral gene therapy trials a young man suddenly died. I personally think that stopping all such trials was a mistake, but care needs to be taken. Don't you think?

Free people can make their own decisions about their own health. But of course we are not free.

We wouldn't want dying people to have a chance to live if they might die from something else would we? Makes perfect sense.

59 posted on 09/11/2002 8:25:53 AM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: mjp
I hope not everyone is getting their hopes up. Test tube research and clinical research on patients are two entirely different things. I am in the biomedical research field and you have to follow the money trail. These investigators (researchers) derive their research money by making these claims. This investigator who wants to do clinical research on patients derives her research money from this study. I don't doubt these claims, but just because you are able to duplicate this study in a test tube, usually never correlates to human research.
60 posted on 09/11/2002 8:26:41 AM PDT by truthandlife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-127 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson