Embryonic stem cells inhibit cancer

Atomic_Piggy

Atomic_Piggy

Newbie
Joined
Apr 26, 2006
Messages
6,485
Reaction score
2
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13404-cancers-inhibited-by-embryonic-stem-cell-protein.html

Human embryonic stem cells produce a protein which shows some anti-cancer properties in the lab, according to a new study.

The potential for stem-cell therapies to cause cancer is a major concern, but now researchers at Northwestern University in Chicago, US, say a protein produced by human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) can inhibit the growth and spread of breast cancer and malignant melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer.

They suspect that the protein, called Lefty, has similar effects on other tumour types, including those of the prostate.

The similarities between stem cells ? primitive cells which can differentiate into the body?s different tissue types ? and tumour cells have intrigued researchers. Both are self-renewing and have the capacity to give rise to different cells types.

The team at Northwestern previously showed that hESCs ? the most versatile type of stem cell ? produce chemicals that caused melanoma cells to revert to normal skin cells.

They also demonstrated that melanoma and breast cancers produce a protein called Nodal that helps tumour cells spread, and that this protein also facilitates embryonic stem cell's ability to turn into different cell types.
Tumours controlled

In the latest study they set out to find the substances produced by hESCs that have anti-cancer properties ? perhaps, they believed, by blocking Nodal.

Lefty, the protein they identified, blocks the production of Nodal and therefore controls embryonic cell differentiation and development.

Mary Hendrix, who led the study, showed that unlike hESCs, however, tumour cells do not express Lefty. This allows them to produce Nodal in an unregulated manner ? and to keep growing and spreading.

But when the researchers exposed aggressive tumour cells to the chemical environment of hESCs, which contained Lefty, levels of Nodal production fell sharply, and the tumour cells became less invasive and even started to die.

Hendrix told New Scientist she was optimistic that anti-cancer treatments based on stem cell proteins such as Lefty would emerge. "We now hope to interest pharmaceutical or biotech companies into developing partnerships to develop new treatments. We really believe that we are onto something important."

She adds that other stem cells proteins with anti-cancer effects probably remained to be discovered.
Embryonic source

Significantly, Hendrix notes that Lefty is secreted only by hESCs, and not by any other stem-cell type tested ? including stem cells isolated from amniotic fluid, cord blood or adult bone marrow ? or placental cells.

"After all the controversy about using embryonic stem cells, this shows how potentially important such research is," she says.

Lyle Armstrong at Newcastle University in the UK says the latest study is "convincing" in showing the prominent role the Nodal protein plays in aggressive cancers. He says more research is needed to see if other types of cancer respond equally well when the pathway is switched off.

"The paper clearly shows that factors which probably promote human embryonic stem cell proliferation are important in controlling tumour cell behaviour," notes Stephen Minger, director of the stem cell biology laboratory at Kings College London. "This provides a novel target for developing tumour cell therapies."
Click to expand...

Kickass.
 
Hmm very interesting. I'm curious as to how many types of cancer this ends up affecting after they research it further.
 
Lefty? Aren't proteins usually given bizarrely arcane names? Lefty sounds like a thug in some dingy bar.
 
I was like "****" then I was like wait...inhibit means..."yay"!
TBH I would expect it to promote considering what it's doing but oh well for the better!
 
Adabiviak said:
Lefty? Aren't proteins usually given bizarrely arcane names? Lefty sounds like a thug in some dingy bar.
Click to expand...

They're quite often given acronyms relating to their function as names, such as PKA - Protein Kinase A. Odd names like Lefty etc. are more common when we don't know anything about how they work.
 
So they found their cure for cancer?
 
No, Druckles, you are the cure.

And then Druckles was the thing from I am Legend.
 
It's been shown to inhibit two types of cancer.

I don't think we'll ever find a single cure for all types of cancer despite what the media talks about, they're too varied.
 
cure.jpg


Hell yeah!
 
I only read the first sentence, but I thought of something: If they know the properties of anti-cancer, why don't they synthetically engineer the cure?

/conspiracy theory
 
Properties of anti-cancer treatments:

1: Inhibit growth of cancer.
 
Well if this goes through we might want to look a colonizing Mars and or the Moon.
 
If you're trying to make a correlation here, I'm not seeing it.
 
This means potential for an entire new set of effective cancer treatments (mortality rate decreases). In other words, cancer is one of those things that helps prevent overpopulation.
 
Old people will still continue to die, BHC. The leading cause of death has always been heart disease.
 
Leading cause of death is Heart disease, but coming in at #3 is cancer.
 
Again, just because you cure cancer in someone doesn't mean they're not going to die a few years later. This is especially true for the elderly. It's not like someone will live forever because they had a cancer removed. The most important thing here is that it will save the lives of millions of children.

If someone doesn't die from one thing, they'll die from another eventually. It will not cause a dramatic increase in population.
 
Humans as a whole living longer on average due to no deaths due to cancer -> higher average number of people having sex -> higher birthrate -> moar baybees
 
Pesmerga said:
Again, just because you cure cancer in someone doesn't mean they're not going to die a few years later. This is especially true for the elderly. It's not like someone will live forever because they had a cancer removed. The most important thing here is that it will save the lives of millions of children.

If someone doesn't die from one thing, they'll die from another eventually. It will not cause a dramatic increase in population.
Click to expand...

What?

Stigmata said:
Humans as a whole living longer on average due to no deaths due to cancer -> higher average number of people having sex -> higher birthrate -> moar baybees
Click to expand...
This, coupled with the fact that it's millions of children.. They do grow up, y'know...
 
Millions is definitely not a "dramatic" increase. Our ordinary population growth endangers our resource availability far more than that.

A total of 34,500 childhood cancer deaths were reported in the United States during 1990--2004
Click to expand...
http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5648a1.htm

34 thousand children died in 14 years due to all types of cancer in the USA alone. I overestimated the mortality rate of children. Even if this new research cured all cancers, it would save far fewer than even a million lives in the next 14 years. Compare this to the annual population growth and it's a drop of water in a pool.

In conclusion, curing cancer will contribute only a small amount to the growing population of Humanity on Earth. In either case, it is important we find a new home and a new way to power it.
 
I'll get the drywall and two-by-fours.

brb going to home hardware
 
Wow that's awesome. Now we can go in the sun n shit cos the buggers work skin melanoma's!
 
I consulted my cancer lecturer today, she hadn't heard about it but says this type of claim comes out fairly regularly, has for decades, and rarely amounts to anything - being more an attempt to snag funding than anything else.

Also, there is no one cure for cancer, it's very unlikely they ever will be. "Cancer" is not one disease, it is legion (to translate for the internet).
 
So we're overpopulated. I fail to see how colonising new planets is a better way to solve the problem than birth control. I haven't got much against colonising planets, but we shouldn't do it to solve overcrowding problems, we should do it for the same reason we went to the moon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Escaep
First patient treated with Stem Cells
Replies
38
Views
2K
Eejit
Eejit
No Limit
AIDS cured?
Replies
19
Views
931
Kula Meenur
Kula Meenur
No Limit
Oral Sex may cause cancer
Replies
30
Views
1K
Dead Phil
D
Warped
Dr. Grant, my dear Dr. Sattler. Welcome to Jurassic Park
Replies
30
Views
3K
Mr. Djees
Mr. Djees
Eejit
OI! HEED!
Replies
20
Views
848
MorganFreeman911
MorganFreeman911
Back
Top