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 1-5051-100101-127 next last

1 posted on 09/10/2002 7:16:04 PM PDT by mjp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mjp
all good things come from God
it was there all along,we only now
found it
2 posted on 09/10/2002 7:18:16 PM PDT by cactusSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mjp
God is going to be mad at this.

No fair!
3 posted on 09/10/2002 7:20:39 PM PDT by MonroeDNA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

!!!HOLY $HIIIII....PING
4 posted on 09/10/2002 7:23:46 PM PDT by Bad~Rodeo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mjp
HPV has been implicated in many cancers to be found in diverse place throughout the human organism. How is the RNAi derived?
5 posted on 09/10/2002 7:26:10 PM PDT by MHGinTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mjp
"Milner said she intended starting clinical trials as a potential treatment for cervical cancer within five years."

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.

6 posted on 09/10/2002 7:27:18 PM PDT by StormEye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mjp
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'm so sorry but, I suspect there are many loved ones out here that should not have to line up behind those in the aids line. I suspect there are many good descent loved ones that could start a line of their own. AND GUESS WHAT THEY EARNED THE OPPORTUNITY

Now folks don't give me a lesson on aids. Trust me I don't need it and I heard all the crap and balogna from the left liberal gay community.

7 posted on 09/10/2002 7:28:02 PM PDT by chachacha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MonroeDNA
You're joking right?
8 posted on 09/10/2002 7:29:22 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | 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.

That's 5 years to start clinical trials. They've got to get through several phases of clinical trials. An available treatment may be 15 years away.

Thank the FDA on your way out.

9 posted on 09/10/2002 7:33:17 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Comment #10 Removed by Moderator

To: MonroeDNA
And God said, "Finally!"
11 posted on 09/10/2002 7:43:06 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
The Discovery and Extent of RNAi in Animals and Protists

http://www.hhmi.ucla.edu/C168/week5/rnai/rnai.htm
12 posted on 09/10/2002 7:44:11 PM PDT by Bad~Rodeo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MonroeDNA
trials in two years ? How about in two minutes on cancer victims ? Ooooops I forgot it's not about curing people it's about staying in the research business......my bad !

Stay Safe Monroe !

13 posted on 09/10/2002 7:46:32 PM PDT by Squantos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mjp
I believe my 3 yr. old daughter is going to grow up in a world in which cancer is as feared as the common cold.
14 posted on 09/10/2002 7:50:53 PM PDT by Brett66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mjp
Everybody needs to see this great news! Bump!!
15 posted on 09/10/2002 7:51:08 PM PDT by apochromat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brett66
I hope so. We've got lots of other fish to fry.
16 posted on 09/10/2002 7:52:55 PM PDT by justsomedude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: mjp
so, who's stock should we buy?
17 posted on 09/10/2002 7:53:55 PM PDT by justsomedude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cactusSharp
all good things come from God it was there all along,we only now found it

So, why did God hide it?

Hank

18 posted on 09/10/2002 7:59:59 PM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mjp
Exceptional!
I hope and pray it is an effective cancer fighter,
and I hope and pray they make trillions of dollars saving millions of lives,
and I hope and pray that the FDA is overrun by desperate family members screaming for a chance at a cure.
19 posted on 09/10/2002 8:09:53 PM PDT by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mjp
Surprisingly, RNAi could be induced in C. elegans even by ingestion of dsRNA! E. coli expressing dsRNAs for unc-22 or fem-1 were fed to worms, 40-80% of the worms showed the specific phenotypes.

Ohhhhh. Should make it easy to drugify.

20 posted on 09/10/2002 8:12:09 PM PDT by America's Resolve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chachacha
People that contracted Aids have just as much rights as any cancer victim-are you for real? And I'm not a relative of someone with Aids but rather someone who recently buried their brother from lung, brain, throat,bladder and skin cancer. I suppose your thinking would also apply to babies and children who have been infected with Aids from blood transfusions. Let's hope you or nobody you love is ever infected with Aids. I'm sure you'd be dancing to a different tune "chachacha" and demand that your DECENT loved one had earned their opportunity to be in line for the treatment. Nobody should be penalized for the way they got Aids-how sad it is to know that someone would feel that way and mean it. There's no "waltzing" around it "chachacha" your mixed up, no one person or disease is more important than the next.
21 posted on 09/10/2002 8:15:28 PM PDT by TIGHTEN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Bad~Rodeo
Thank you so much for the link.

In light of the following from the source you gave, what are we to make of 'how the RNAi is derived?'... They first showed that siRNAs are produced even in the absence of RNAi using Drosophila embryo extract.

22 posted on 09/10/2002 8:17:57 PM PDT by MHGinTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
I know there are some legitimate clinical trials needed, but often it seems the FDA is so afraid a drug/medical method is going to kill someone they would rather let those people die.
23 posted on 09/10/2002 8:27:59 PM PDT by VetoBill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MonroeDNA
no--- god will merely wonder "what took us so long!"
24 posted on 09/10/2002 8:29:58 PM PDT by Doc On The Bay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
You're going to make me work at this aren't you...L~

Ok, here's the way i understand it, excerpt from, never mind...

Double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) is a potent and specific inhibitor (RNAi) of gene activity in Drosophila. dsRNA corresponding to a single gene specifically interferes with expression of that gene by causing rapid degradation of the cytoplasmic mRNA product. A concentration of dsRNA that is an order-of-magnitude lower than the level of mRNA transcripts is sufficient to degrade most transcripts. Interference of gene expression can persist for at least fourteen days in an organism during which the body size increases 100-fold. These latter two properties indicate that the RNAi effect is amplified and highly stable. However, we find that RNAi is efficiently initiated only in the germline or early blastoderm-stage,suggesting that its normal function is limited to those stages. In order to understand the mechanism behind RNAi, we have undertaken a genetic screen for mutants that are resistant to RNAi. Results from the screen will be presented. In parallel, we are using a cell-free system derived from syncitial blastoderm extracts that mimics RNAi in vivo. Evidence from this in vitro system and from embryo experiments rule out RNA-directed RNA synthesis as a possible step in the RNAi process. This result is in contradiction to evidence that a similar phenomenon in plants and fungi use RNA synthesis.

25 posted on 09/10/2002 8:33:30 PM PDT by Bad~Rodeo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: cactusSharp
You said it. Incredible!
26 posted on 09/10/2002 8:33:53 PM PDT by glory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
guess he hide eye glasses too huh ?
God din;y hide it....he allowed it
via free will
27 posted on 09/10/2002 8:51:50 PM PDT by cactusSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: TIGHTEN
Any practicing gay person should not recieve one penny's worth of cure till all those who "you refered to" and "I refered to", who got it through a secondary method.

NO cure for the practicing Gay's till all the others get it. PERIOD. GET IT TIGHTEN?

I think I referred to the left gay community in my post. I stand on my statement.

Maybe you read to fast.

28 posted on 09/10/2002 8:57:30 PM PDT by chachacha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
Yeah, but OTOH, patients used to be sold snake oil and dropped dead more from the "med" than the illness...
29 posted on 09/10/2002 8:59:29 PM PDT by Chemist_Geek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Motherbear
I understand this and I'm not refering to them. I'm refering to the practicing gay's. I stand on my statement and I'm proud of it.
30 posted on 09/10/2002 9:00:46 PM PDT by chachacha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Bad~Rodeo
You'll have to forgive my laziness, but I'm in the middle of sectional exams. What is the method of getting the specific RNAi to the specific target cells. Retrovirus?
31 posted on 09/10/2002 9:02:19 PM PDT by realpatriot71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Comment #32 Removed by Moderator

To: MHGinTN
Drosophilia are fruitflies.
33 posted on 09/10/2002 9:06:04 PM PDT by reformedliberal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
You're right about the FDA being a "pain in the ass," but you wouldn't want physicians and scientists injecting anything and everything into a person before research is done. What kills one bad thing, usually kills another good thing as well.

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?

34 posted on 09/10/2002 9:06:09 PM PDT by realpatriot71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Motherbear
What is wrong? If you are gay and you got aids because of your "alternative life style" you are not deserving of the cure till all those who are not gay get their cure.
35 posted on 09/10/2002 9:07:52 PM PDT by chachacha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: mjp
There have been many tantalizingly effective anti-cancer drugs that work only in a petri dish. The real problem is how to deliver these agents to where they can be effective.

Let's pray this is one that succeeds.
36 posted on 09/10/2002 9:18:48 PM PDT by Hostage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: realpatriot71
go study, .....post me tomorrow...S~
37 posted on 09/10/2002 9:23:21 PM PDT by Bad~Rodeo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
So, why did God hide it?

For the same reason she created billion+ year old photons from distant stars a mear few thousand light years from the earth.

She's got a great, though clearly dark, sense of humor.

38 posted on 09/10/2002 9:33:00 PM PDT by Dinsdale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Dinsdale; Hank Kerchief
Same ol' lame ol'.
39 posted on 09/10/2002 9:37:49 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: mjp
Curing cancer will drive up the Alzheimers rate.
40 posted on 09/10/2002 9:39:59 PM PDT by Mike Darancette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-127 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