Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New approach makes cancer cells explode (and die)
Karolinska Institutet ^ | 3/20/2014

Posted on 03/23/2014 11:25:02 AM PDT by RoosterRedux

Researchers at Karolinska Institutet in Sweden have discovered that a substance called Vacquinol-1 makes cells from glioblastoma, the most aggressive type of brain tumour, literally explode. When mice were given the substance, which can be given in tablet form, tumour growth was reversed and survival was prolonged. The findings are published in the journal Cell .

The established treatments that are available for glioblastoma include surgery, radiation and chemotherapy. But even if this treatment is given the average survival is just 15 months. It is therefore critical to find better treatments for malignant brain tumours.

Researchers at Karolinska Institutet and colleagues atUppsalaUniversityhave discovered an entirely new mechanism to kill tumour cells in glioblastoma. Researchers in an initial stage have exposed tumour cells to a wide range of molecules. If the cancer cells died, the molecule was considered of interest for further studies, which initially applied to over 200 kinds of molecules. Following extensive studies, a single molecule has been identified as being of particular interest. The researchers wanted to find out why it caused cancer cell death.

It was found that the molecule gave the cancer cells an uncontrolled vacuolization, a process in which the cell carries substances from outside the cell into its interior. This carrying process is made via the vacuoles, which can roughly be described as blisters or bags consisting of cell membranes. The process is similar to what was behind last year's Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine, the discovery that describes how cellular vesicles move things from the interior of the cell to its surface.

When cancer cells were filled with a large amount of vacuoles, the cell membranes (the outer wall of the cell) collapsed and the cell simply exploded and necrotized.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.cision.com ...


TOPICS: Health/Medicine
KEYWORDS: cancer; karolinska; sweden

1 posted on 03/23/2014 11:25:02 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux
Making cancer cells explode is not really very hard.

Making cancer cells explode while leaving nearby healthy cells in the un-exploded state is much harder.

2 posted on 03/23/2014 11:28:57 AM PDT by Steely Tom (How do you feel about robbing Peter's robot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom
Making cancer cells explode is not really very hard.

Hah...any suicide bomber knows that.;-)

3 posted on 03/23/2014 11:30:44 AM PDT by RoosterRedux (The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing -- Socrates)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux

Cytolysis. A word not invented in Africa or by followers of islam.


4 posted on 03/23/2014 11:32:09 AM PDT by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; ...

Thanks RoosterRedux.


5 posted on 03/23/2014 11:32:43 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom

It sounds as if this Vacquinol-1 is specifically attracted to glioblastoma cells, from the way the article was written at least.


6 posted on 03/23/2014 11:34:14 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux

Gee, they cured cancer in mice AGAIN.

Too bad that typically doesn’t translate to humans.


7 posted on 03/23/2014 11:38:09 AM PDT by rbg81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux

Great news for mice with cancer.


8 posted on 03/23/2014 11:38:31 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
Great news for mice with cancer.

And lucky for them, they are exempt from Obamascare.

9 posted on 03/23/2014 11:40:05 AM PDT by RoosterRedux (The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing -- Socrates)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux

Killing cancer cells in mice is apparently pretty easy. I’ve seen a dozen different substances that killed cancer like gangbusters in mice but have moderate to poor usefulness in humans.

I wish them success.


10 posted on 03/23/2014 11:41:18 AM PDT by dangerdoc (pWestboro Bank you should be forced to make the same decision I did even if I know I'm right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangerdoc
Killing cancer cells in mice is apparently pretty easy. I’ve seen a dozen different substances that killed cancer like gangbusters in mice but have moderate to poor usefulness in humans.

Conversely, there are probably many things that will kill human cancer cells, which we won't find out about because they are ineffective against mouse cancers.

11 posted on 03/23/2014 11:46:40 AM PDT by SauronOfMordor (Socialists want YOUR wealth redistributed, never THEIRS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux
Researchers at Karolinska Institutet in Sweden have discovered that a substance called Vacquinol-1 makes cells from glioblastoma, the most aggressive type of brain tumour, literally explode.

Exploding brain tumors? Imagine the side effects that will be named in the commercial's legal disclaimer:


12 posted on 03/23/2014 12:11:20 PM PDT by Alex Murphy ("the defacto Leader of the FR Calvinist Protestant Brigades")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux
. But even if this treatment is given the average survival is just 15 months.

And this is the sad truth about the current state of cancer therapy. Despite a War on Cancer being fought since Nixon, life expectancy for most forms of cancer is increased by perhaps mere weeks, misery from treatment is off scale, and expenses are astronomical.

Prevailing cancer dogma is somatic (gene) theory, which is drilling in what increasingly looks like a dry hole. The genetic chaos of cancer is likely a consequence, and not the cause. All we have to show for the billions invested is advanced gene sequencing tools (which are useful) and what may turn out to be a surplus of gene scientists.

Some (Seyfried, D'Agostino) have kicked somatic to the curb, and are following up on Warburg's (metabolic/mitochondrial) theory from the early 20th. This shows some promise.

If I had a diagnosis of this particular cancer, I would go for:

... for example:
Nature: The M2 splice isoform of pyruvate kinase is important for cancer metabolism and tumour growth

Oncologists are apt to be largely unaware of the above. Anyone who plans to turn down chemo or rad anyway needs keep an eye on what dissenting researchers are up to, and make their own decisions. Fortunately, much of the dietary approach can be done independently by individuals.

In the meantime, a low-carb, high-fat, grain-free diet, with attention to a long list of other adverse junk sold as "food" is apt to be highly prophylactic against getting cancer in the first place. My bet is placed there at the moment.

13 posted on 03/23/2014 12:25:43 PM PDT by Boundless (Survive Obamacare by not needing it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom

Indeed.

I have had great success killing cancer cells with plain old bleach in the lab. Bleach is effective, but would never be a good chemotherapy agent due to its high toxicity against just about everything.


14 posted on 03/23/2014 12:41:24 PM PDT by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux

Bruzynski clinic.
Do a search for the video.
Will A multi billion dollar industry allow a cure?


15 posted on 03/23/2014 12:48:13 PM PDT by Post5203 (For the first time in my life, I despise this country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor

FTA: “Researchers made mice that had human glioblastoma cells transplanted ingest the substance for five days.”


16 posted on 03/23/2014 1:35:42 PM PDT by TigersEye (Stupid is a Progressive disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Boundless
But even if this treatment is given the average survival is just 15 months.

I don't know if you caught it but that wasn't a reference to the new Vacquinol-1 molecule they found.

17 posted on 03/23/2014 1:38:55 PM PDT by TigersEye (Stupid is a Progressive disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Is that from Scanners?


18 posted on 03/23/2014 2:31:41 PM PDT by diamond6 (Behold this Heart which has so loved men!" Jesus to St. Margaret Mary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux

bookmark


19 posted on 03/23/2014 2:42:39 PM PDT by dadfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

> I don’t know if you caught it but that wasn’t
> a reference to the new Vacquinol-1 molecule they found.

Nor was my reply, which was more about the state of current consensus (Standard of Care) therapies.

This new molecule may have some use in treating human GB, but it’s going to take years for trials and approvals.

In the meantime, anyone with a diagnosis will be dead before that happens. There are non-toxic alternatives that people can look into, particularly if they’re planning to decline “surgery, radiation and chemotherapy” anyway, as many do.


20 posted on 03/23/2014 2:56:10 PM PDT by Boundless (Survive Obamacare by not needing it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: rbg81

The FDA prohibits trials in humans.


21 posted on 03/23/2014 3:00:06 PM PDT by Balding_Eagle (Over production, one of the top 5 worries for the American Farmer every year.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

The FDA is as great a cancer on society as cancer itself.


22 posted on 03/23/2014 3:01:03 PM PDT by Balding_Eagle (Over production, one of the top 5 worries for the American Farmer every year.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Boundless

Someone emailed about somatic vs. metabolic theory.

Bad news from the TCGA:
http://robbwolf.com/2013/09/19/origin-cancer/

Seyfried’s text “Cancer as a Metabolic Disease” (not cheap):
http://www.bc.edu/schools/cas/biology/facadmin/seyfried.html

A blog by an MD exploring keto diets generally.
http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/war-cancer
http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/way-exploit-metabolic-quirk-cancer

Someone else asked about specific advice on prostate cancer.

Seyfried’s page has a link for further info on using R-KD (restricted calorie ketogenic diet) as therapy. I might add that, even though I’ve read his book, I tend to think that R-KD isn’t the whole answer, nor does Seyfried describe it as a “cure”.

On prostate, I advise being very skeptical of PSA results. Our family has already had experience with false positives. Biopsy is the most reliable. Kallikrein testing looks promising and may be coming to market.

This is all more than I know about it, having stumbled into it while exploring diet & health.


23 posted on 03/23/2014 3:15:52 PM PDT by Boundless (Survive Obamacare by not needing it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Boundless

Understood.


24 posted on 03/23/2014 3:24:43 PM PDT by TigersEye (Stupid is a Progressive disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor

nice thought.

A miracle medicine that never sees the light of day because the stupid mouse died.


25 posted on 03/23/2014 4:18:56 PM PDT by dangerdoc (pWestboro Bank you should be forced to make the same decision I did even if I know I'm right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Boundless

I just got around to reading a study published a few years ago about the usefulness of PSA screening. Basically doing the surgery did not significantly improve mortality or morbidity.

As far as dietary treatment of solid tumor cancer, I’ve seen and known many people over the years that have tried holistic and or chemo, basically if the surgeon can’t cut it out, the prognosis isn’t good. Let me modify that, I have seen a number of women that had positive nodes survive long term after mastectomy and radiation with the radiation probably killing some residual cancer in the lymph nodes.

As far as metabolically starving a cancer cell, I think brain cells are probably more sensitive than cancer cells to low blood sugar so I’m not sure you could eradicate the cancer without gorking yourself in the process.

I’m about two years out from cancer myself. I went with radical surgery and no chemo. Chemo would have reduced my chance of recurrence by about 20% but absolute risk reduction was really about 2% and my chances of permanent nerve damage and or death from treatment was probably higher than that with a 100% risk of being miserable for 6-9 months. So far so good.


26 posted on 03/23/2014 4:42:15 PM PDT by dangerdoc (pWestboro Bank you should be forced to make the same decision I did even if I know I'm right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: dangerdoc

> ... brain cells are probably more sensitive than
> cancer cells to low blood sugar so I’m not sure
> you could eradicate the cancer without gorking
> yourself in the process.

It is a common and pervasive myth that brain cells run only on glucose. They run on it only because 99% of current populations are on full-time glycemic diets, with the blood glucose being metabolized from carbs primarily, if not actually ingested as glucose (table sugar is 50% glucose).

Humans are capable of an alternate metabolism (nutritional ketosis, NK) in which most cells run on fat, and brain cells run on ketone bodies metabolized from fat. Some isolated human cultures (Inuit, Masai) live in NK most of the time. Many individuals elsewhere have chosen to.

I eat few enough carbs that I probably am at least part-time ketotic, but haven’t bothered to invest in the measuring equipment. Anyone on a low carb diet that is less than 50 grams net carbs per day is part-time keto.

Many chosing NK claim that their brains run better on ketones than glucose. NK should not be confused with DKA (diabetic ketoacidosis) or starvation ketosis. The eatingacademy site linked earlier has extensive articles about NK, by an MD who has been experimenting on himself with extensive instrumentation.

It might shock the readers of this forum to learn that your government is giving you bad advice :).

Disease trends and healthcare costs are rocketing out of control. People aren’t fat and sick because they aren’t following the official advice, but because they are.

The US advocates a full time high-glycemic diet. The USDA’s MyPlate is 60% of calories from carbs, primarily from grains (which means primarily from wheat, which has massive issues beyond being as glycemic as many sugars). Every other agency defers to MyPlate on diet.

The ideal human macronutrient balance is not yet known, but it appears that carbs need to be more like 5-10% of calories, not 60%.

Sugar feeds cancer. Oncologists use this fact to image it on x-ray, but not to treat it.
Why?

Many pundits will flat out claim that sugar doesn’t just feed cancer, it often causes it. The cancer stats for NK cultures tend to support that, as does a recent paper reported on here:
http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2013/06/chowdhury-and-crabtree-play-with.html


27 posted on 03/23/2014 5:11:37 PM PDT by Boundless (Survive Obamacare by not needing it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux

!


28 posted on 03/23/2014 5:20:02 PM PDT by skinkinthegrass (The end move in politics is always to pick up a gun..0'Caligula / 0'Reid / 0'Pelosi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Post5203

Did you forget the /s?

You do realize that doctors, researchers and pharmaceutical employees get cancer too?


29 posted on 03/23/2014 5:33:21 PM PDT by dangerdoc (pWestboro Bank you should be forced to make the same decision I did even if I know I'm right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Boundless

I’m familiar with ketone metabolism. Brains can sustain some of its function on ketone but the body continues to produce glucose even if you consume none. It either converts dietary proteins or starts catabolizing muscle.

Cutting out carbs decreases insulin and other cell growth stimulators, that may explain the relationship between carbs and cancer.


30 posted on 03/23/2014 7:10:13 PM PDT by dangerdoc (pWestboro Bank you should be forced to make the same decision I did even if I know I'm right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: dangerdoc

Did you watch the video?


31 posted on 03/24/2014 5:48:02 AM PDT by Post5203 (For the first time in my life, I despise this country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux; AllAmericanGirl44; Armen Hareyan; B4Ranch; Ban Draoi Marbh Draoi; bayareablues; ...
CANCER WARRIORS PING

This is a ping list for cancer survivors and caregivers to share information. If you would like your name added to or removed from this ping list, please tell us in the comments section at this link (click here). (For the most updated list of names, click on the same link and scroll to the end of the comments.)

32 posted on 03/24/2014 11:57:38 AM PDT by Tired of Taxes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangerdoc

> Brains can sustain some of its function on ketone ...

Humans can live on zero carbs. This has been known since the 1920s. People are now choosing to live in deep NK, and have been, continuously, for years, with no impairment in brain function.

> ... but the body continues to produce glucose even if
> you consume none. It either converts dietary proteins
> or starts catabolizing muscle.

True. Some BG is always there. We can even metabolize it from fat, but at a net energy deficit I imagine.

This residual BG (and the glutamine) is presumably why some R-KD cancer researchers are conjecturing exogenous ketones (BHB and/or AcAc consumed as food) to get ketone levels up to stress the tumors.

> Cutting out carbs decreases insulin and other cell
> growth stimulators, that may explain the relationship
> between carbs and cancer.

I understand that diabetics on metaformin get less cancer. Some folks with cancer are even asking if it might be worthwhile to take metaformin even though they aren’t diagnosed T2D. They may be missing the larger picture.


33 posted on 03/24/2014 4:56:30 PM PDT by Boundless (Survive Obamacare by not needing it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

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
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

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