Cancer’s Secrets Come Into Sharper Focus

NY Times ^ | August 15, 2011 | GEORGE JOHNSON

[neverdem]

For the last decade cancer research has been guided by a common vision of how a single cell, outcompeting its neighbors, evolves into a malignant tumor.

Through a series of random mutations, genes that encourage cellular division are pushed into overdrive, while genes that normally send growth-restraining signals are taken offline.

With the accelerator floored and the brake lines cut, the cell and its progeny are free to rapidly multiply. More mutations accumulate, allowing the cancer cells to elude other safeguards and to invade neighboring tissue and metastasize.

These basic principles — laid out 11 years ago in a landmark paper, “The Hallmarks of Cancer,” by Douglas Hanahan and Robert A. Weinberg, and revisited in a follow-up article this year — still serve as the reigning paradigm, a kind of Big Bang theory for the field.

But recent discoveries have been complicating the picture with tangles of new detail. Cancer appears to be even more willful and calculating than previously imagined.

Most DNA, for example, was long considered junk — a netherworld of detritus that had no important role in cancer or anything else. Only about 2 percent of the human genome carries the code for making enzymes and other proteins, the cogs and scaffolding of the machinery that a cancer cell turns to its own devices.

These days “junk” DNA is referred to more respectfully as “noncoding” DNA, and researchers are finding clues that “pseudogenes” lurking within this dark region may play a role in cancer.

“We’ve been obsessively focusing our attention on 2 percent of the genome,” said Dr. Pier Paolo Pandolfi, a professor of medicine and pathology at Harvard Medical School. This spring, at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research in Orlando, Fla., he described a new “biological dimension” in which signals coming...

[TChad]

Kinda surprised to see this come out of the Times. It actually carries an air of objectivity.

The NYT can still do excellent science reporting, with no hint of the outrageous liberal bias that renders most Times articles unreadable.

[Don W]

2% of the genome.

Hmm that’s curiously close to the percentage of cancer donations that actually go to research!

The vast majority of the rest goes to soliciting more research dollars, while the head of the Canadian Cancer Agency brings home over $5 million per year.

I wonder what his charitable donations look like...

[metmom]

“We’ve been obsessively focusing our attention on 2 percent of the genome,” said Dr. Pier Paolo Pandolfi, a professor of medicine and pathology at Harvard Medical School.

And why do suppose that is?

Junk science.

Some people don't deserve the title of *scientist*.

[neverdem]

How fatty diets cause diabetes

'Late' asthma research unearths potential new treatment

'Good' prion-like proteins boost immune response, UT Southwestern scientists report

U of Minnesota researchers discover a natural food preservative that kills food-borne bacteria

FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list.

[bert]

-——‘portraying homelessness in art———

Let’s see........ perhaps an all white or light gray canvas. The concept is nothing or absence of a dwelling.

Then perhaps a sculpture, a wooden base with a clearly defined platform on top. The emptiness on top also conveys nothing, the absence of a dwelling.

Or perhaps a performance. The curtain opens and nothing happens. The concept of nothing, the absence of a dwelling is portrayed by silence and the blank brick wall behind the stage

[bboop]

Ah, NO performance. Perhaps we could get funding. Hard to document how the funds were used, but ‘creative writing’ is just that.

[SunkenCiv]

GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach	join list or digest view topics view or post blog bookmark post a topic subscribe
Thanks neverdem. Cancer appears to be even more willful and calculating than previously imagined. Most DNA, for example, was long considered junk.. is referred to more respectfully as "noncoding" DNA, and researchers are finding clues that "pseudogenes" lurking within this dark region may play a role in cancer. It's a 'Helix, Make Mine a Double' topic. To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.

[Bellflower]

Most research is aimed at making money. This is one area that tax dollars could be used to find cures that may not be dollar driven. When a cure doesn't promise to make lots of money it is deep sixed. This is in response to wanting to keep a huge cash cow well fed. Where billions are to be made morality is easily ignored.

[1010RD]

Isn’t Magic Johnson proof of an AIDS cure?

[dubyagee]

bfl