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."

[Williams]

It's always possible a great conspiracy exists, but if they didn't publish news and if research money didn't flow in, there would be no cures.

[Grampa Dave]

I can remember some sharp oncologists talking about this possibility over a decade ago.

[Smokin' Joe]

WOw. You must be a genius. Did you think of that all by yourself?

Einstein smoked (a pipe). SO much for that BS. Get a life.

[Protagoras]

Einstein smoked (a pipe). SO much for that BS. Get a life.

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.

But since you are making the case that smoking is smart, I'll change the little post.

Smoking is a selfishness meter, the more you smoke, the more selfish you are.

[spanalot]

Uranium miners (radon exposure) who smoke less than 1/2 pack a day have less lung cancer than nonsmoking uranium miners.

Also smokers have a lower incidence of breast cancer, MS, and Lou Gehrigs disease.

[Protagoras]

So smoking is smart?

[Protagoras]

BTW, I support your right to smoke (under most circumstances) with more vigor that most people support any right.

You own yourself, you have a right to be as stupid as you want.

[Protagoras]

A vast conspiracy against a cure for cancer is one of the most bizarre of all conspiracy theories.

[Smokin' Joe]

You also managed to miss my main point.

I reiterate. We would all be better off if the money which has been pissed away trying to convince people of the obvious,to wit: 'that cigarettes are bad for you', had been, was being, and would be in the future, spent on basic research into curing cancer.

Maybe you feel safe from cancer as a nonsmoker or as someone who is never around smoke from cigarettes. I am happy for you.

Tremendous numbers of people who have never smoked have died of cancer. Many of them before tobacco was introduced to Europeans. When tobacco is gone people will still get cancer. All sorts of cancer, not just lung cancer.

My point is simple. We can fund fundamental research into the disease or waste fortunes trying to make 'nicotine niggers' out of smokers.

We can find a cure which will benefit anyone and everyone who gets cancer, whatever the type or cause, or we can spend fortunes villifying people so we can write smug bromides on the internet.

Frankly, I view the latter as a tremendous waste.

[chuckles]

I have owned Philip Morris stock, on and off, for many years now. If the money was spent on cancer research that has been spent in courtrooms, all mankind would have benefited. Just look at the settlement with the states. The money was supposed to be used for health care and anti smoking adds, but has been frittered away on potholes and other projects. The government just lost a case for 145 billion from tobacco. What were they going to do with it if they won? Send money to rebuild Lebanon?

[Williams]

Both my parents smoked, my wife has always been healthy, never smoked, has cancer. She was exposed to a ton of cigar smoke from her father, but that's not my point.

You assume all the money spent in campaigns against smoking would go to a cure for cancer. Maybe but I doubt it. As for smoking, just my humble opinion but it is a dirty foolish addictive and unhealthy habity. It always made me laugh that there was a scientific debate over whether constantly inhaling smoke into your lungs was unhealthy. Duh.

You enjoy it, that's ok with me, but in my opinion it will be a good thing if smoking becomes a thing of the past.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

First I haeard of Apoptosis was discovering the Cellpathways company while searching the Web for help with my wife's treatment of advanced breast cancer.....prior to 2000.

Our Ocologists wasn't convinced there was a treatment with their products ... FDA never did approve it.

[Protagoras]

I reiterate. We would all be better off if the money which has been pissed away trying to convince people of the obvious,to wit: 'that cigarettes are bad for you', had been, was being, and would be in the future, spent on basic research into curing cancer.

I didn't miss it, I just have no reason to think that your OPINION is correct. I happen to think that many, many young people have actually taken the warnings to heart and avoided starting a terrible habit. I readily concede that many others have not.

Maybe you feel safe from cancer as a nonsmoker or as someone who is never around smoke from cigarettes. I am happy for you.

I do not, so much for that. Safer? As in "not as likely to have the same health issues as smokers",,,maybe. But I was a heavy smoker for a long time and do not have any illusions that I quit soon enough or that I am safe now even though I quit 18 years ago. I also am not self-righteous or a "reformed whore". I am not a smoking Nazi, I regularly go to places where people smoke. But if you care about yourself, your health, your family,,,,it is a stupid thing to do. I was stupid, now I am less stupid.

Tremendous numbers of people who have never smoked have died of cancer.

You are rationalizing your habit, not making logical arguments.

Many of them before tobacco was introduced to Europeans. When tobacco is gone people will still get cancer. All sorts of cancer, not just lung cancer.

Ya think????? Lung cancer rates are higher among smokers, period. I have never heard anyone make the case that it would disappear or wouldn't exist in the absence of smoking. So you just made a classic straw-man argument.

No one called anyone the names you cited or vilified anyone so the same applies, Straw-man.

It's not evil to smoke, just stupid, and selfish. You aren't a villain, you are a dummy.

And the lung cancer is just one health issue, maybe the least. But it's just the most terrifying to most people who understand that 85% of all lung cancer is metastatic at the time of discovery. That is almost always a death sentence.

[Perdogg]

How many years are we talking for it to be a treatment once it's proven to be safe?

[sten]

It's always possible a great conspiracy exists, but if they didn't publish news and if research money didn't flow in, there would be no cures.

Have you seen any real cures? The 'cures' being offered are properly described as 'managed care'... another cute way to keep the money coming in from patients and their insurance companies.

In this regard, I do not hold much hope of the US curing these types of problems in the future. In the past, we would have. But since the 90s, its been about 'managing' the 'problem' instead of solving it. The medical field, thanks to HMOs, has turned into a bunch of parasites... which is exactly what Hilary? wants.. thereby 'granting' us proper health care, under her new 'health plan'... which would be controlled by Etna, of course.

For a real cure to real diseases, I expect them to come from countries like China, where profit is not the motivating factor. (this ought to get me flamed) With 2b+ people, its in their best interest to solve the major health problems in order to drop their costs. Of course, noone says they won't charge the rest of the world for the cure.. but at least it will work.

[AFreeBird]

Rule #1: You are going to DIE! (you are in fact, in the process of dying right now)

Rule #2: You cannot change rule # 1.

[spectre]

There is alot to be said for what you wrote..

sw

[Williams]

You certainly have an interesting batch of theories, I especially liked the one about China will cure everything because there is no profit motive. Problem is, we have had communist China and the Soviet bloc for many decades and they are not known for medical cures. IF China gets up the wherewithal to cure anything, it will result from the rise of capitalism there, which puts you back at square one.

Communist countries are notorious for considering their people expendable, so there is no reason to believe the communist rulers will put workers' health above a good cruise missile and the chance to reduce over population.

You say we would have cured cancer in the old days - but we didn't. Still, you are correct that the profit motive can have an insidious effect. For example, the pharma industry will not go down certain research roads unless they can hope to turn a profit in X years. And I wouldn't completely put it past them to hide a cure that would render their market obsolete.

[spanalot]

I enjoy smoking - and drinking - and marbalized steaks - and driving fast - and climbing up mountains at 5:00 AM to sit in tree stands when its 0 degrees.

Having said that, my consumption of cigarettes is 1 or 2 packs a month - I seldom drink during the week, and that steak is not too many times a year.

Moderation - everything in moderation.

[spanalot]

"to make 'nicotine niggers' out of smokers."

Don't you know that every generation needs its sub-humans to pick on?