Lung and skin cancer's DNA mapped

[Chris]

LONDON, Dec. 16, 2009 (Reuters) — Scientists have indentified all the changes in cells of two deadly cancers to produce the first entire cancer gene maps and say the findings mark a "transforming moment" in their understanding of the disease.

The studies by international scientists and Britain's Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute are the first comprehensive descriptions of tumour cell mutations and lay bare all the genetic changes behind melanoma skin cancer and lung cancer.

"What we are seeing today is going to transform the way that we see cancer," Mike Stratton of the Sanger Institute's cancer genome project told a briefing in London. "We have never seen cancer revealed in this form before."

The scientists sequenced all the DNA from both tumour tissue and normal tissue from a melanoma patient and a lung cancer patient using a technology called massively parallel sequencing. By comparing the cancer sequences with the healthy ones, they were able to pick up all the changes specific to cancer.

The lung tumour carried more than 23,000 mutations and the melanoma had more than 33,000.

Peter Campbell, also of the Sanger Institute, said the lung cancer study suggests a typical smoker develops one mutation for every 15 cigarettes smoked and the damage starts with the first puff. Lung cancer kills around 1 million people worldwide each year and 90 percent of cases are caused by smoking.

NewsDaily: Gene maps to transform scientists' work on cancer

 

[garyd]

Which ones? There are several different skin cancers and several different lung cancers.

 

[Screaming Eagle]

Peter Campbell, also of the Sanger Institute, said the lung cancer study suggests a typical smoker develops one mutation for every 15 cigarettes smoked and the damage starts with the first puff.

NewsDaily: Gene maps to transform scientists' work on cancer

Frankly, that last line is just bullshit. It might average to 15, but if one has not developed a tumor yet for the mutations to occur in then they can't occur from the first puff now can they?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Peter Campbell, also of the Sanger Institute, said the lung cancer study suggests a typical smoker develops one mutation for every 15 cigarettes smoked and the damage starts with the first puff.

NewsDaily: Gene maps to transform scientists' work on cancer

Frankly, that last line is just bullshit. It might average to 15, but if one has not developed a tumor yet for the mutations to occur in then they can't occur from the first puff now can they?

After 345,000 cigarettes (31 years at a pack and a half a day) you would have a tumor? Not always the case as everyone's physiology is different.

On the other hand though this is good news as now new treatments can be developed to interrupt or stop these mutations.

 

[Emma]

Peter Campbell, also of the Sanger Institute, said the lung cancer study suggests a typical smoker develops one mutation for every 15 cigarettes smoked and the damage starts with the first puff.

NewsDaily: Gene maps to transform scientists' work on cancer

Frankly, that last line is just bullshit. It might average to 15, but if one has not developed a tumor yet for the mutations to occur in then they can't occur from the first puff now can they?

Gene mutations.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Peter Campbell, also of the Sanger Institute, said the lung cancer study suggests a typical smoker develops one mutation for every 15 cigarettes smoked and the damage starts with the first puff.

NewsDaily: Gene maps to transform scientists' work on cancer

Frankly, that last line is just bullshit. It might average to 15, but if one has not developed a tumor yet for the mutations to occur in then they can't occur from the first puff now can they?

After 345,000 cigarettes (31 years at a pack and a half a day) you would have a tumor? Not always the case as everyone's physiology is different.

On the other hand though this is good news as now new treatments can be developed to interrupt or stop these mutations.

It's GREAT news. As you know I quit recently but my wife hasn't. I want her to and she knows it but she has to want to quit for herself and not for me. I REALLY want her to quit I hope she does.

 

[Toro]

Cool

A friend of mine is a professor of organic chemistry who has patented a treatment for different cancers, but he works with some of the foremost minds in cancer research. It is his opinion that within a generation or two, cancer will be either curable or treatable.

That's good news obviously, since most of us are going to die from cancer or cardiovascular disease.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Cool

A friend of mine is a professor of organic chemistry who has patented a treatment for different cancers, but he works with some of the foremost minds in cancer research. It is his opinion that within a generation or two, cancer will be either curable or treatable.

That's good news obviously, since most of us are going to die from cancer or cardiovascular disease.

thing is, some cancers are already curable, and a lot are treatable. but there are some real-asshole, masquerading, devious bastard cancers, and i don't think a cure for them will be found that soon. does not help of course that a lot of those kind of cancers are rare compared to let's say lung cancer or prostate cancer.

 

[Screaming Eagle]

Peter Campbell, also of the Sanger Institute, said the lung cancer study suggests a typical smoker develops one mutation for every 15 cigarettes smoked and the damage starts with the first puff.

NewsDaily: Gene maps to transform scientists' work on cancer

Frankly, that last line is just bullshit. It might average to 15, but if one has not developed a tumor yet for the mutations to occur in then they can't occur from the first puff now can they?

Gene mutations.

They compared the dna of a tumor with that of the individual and implied that the tumor had mutations. If the person had experienced the same number of mutations then the difference between the two would have been 0.

 

[Emma]

Frankly, that last line is just bullshit. It might average to 15, but if one has not developed a tumor yet for the mutations to occur in then they can't occur from the first puff now can they?

Gene mutations.

They compared the dna of a tumor with that of the individual and implied that the tumor had mutations. If the person had experienced the same number of mutations then the difference between the two would have been 0.

Gene mutations.

By comparing the cancer sequences with the healthy ones, they were able to pick up all the changes specific to cancer.


"These catalogues of mutations are telling us about how the cancer has developed -- so they will inform us on prevention -- and they include all the drivers, which tell us about the processes that are disrupted in the cancer cell which we can try and influence through our treatments," Stratton said.

But the scientists said identifying all the drivers -- the mutations that cause cells to become cancerous -- would take far more work and it could be several years yet before any new targets are found for the development of new cancer drugs.

"Somewhere among the mutations we have found lurk those that drive the cells to become cancerous," said Andy Futreal, who worked on the research published in the Nature journal. "Tracking them down will be our major challenge for the next few years."

 

[Old Rocks]

Yet there are some scientists, noteably Singer and Lindzen, that have testified before Congress that cigerettes are not that bad for you. They also deny global warming.

The evidence of the ill effects of tobacco has been overwhelming for over a century. How long have they been known as 'coffin nails'?

Finding a cure for the types of cancer that they cause is a good thing. Not using tobacco, so as to prevent most of the cancers in the first place, is even a better thing.

 

[waltky]

New gene clue in lung cancer...

Gene clue to how cancer spreads
7 April 2011 - Lung cancer can spread to other parts of the body

A genetic change that makes lung cancer more likely to spread around the body has been pinpointed by US scientists. The research, published in the journal Nature, could ultimately lead to new medicines to fight secondary tumours. The discovery was made in mice but has been confirmed in human tumour samples. A UK cancer charity said understanding why some lung cancers are more likely to spread is vital for developing better treatments. The researchers found the genetic change while studying mice that are genetically programmed to develop lung tumours.

They found reduced activity of the gene - NKX2-1 - in samples from human lung tumours, and found this was associated with higher death rates. Lead author of the paper, Monte Winslow, of the David H Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research at MIT, said understanding the role of the gene may help scientists develop new drugs. "The sad reality is that if you could tell a patient whether their cancer has turned down this gene, you would know they will have a worse outcome, but it wouldn't change their treatment," he said. The gene codes for a protein that switches other genes on and off.

Cancerous cells which have the gene switched off tend to be more aggressive and more likely to break off from the lungs and spread around the body. Nell Barrie, senior science information officer at Cancer Research UK said: "Lung cancer is a huge problem worldwide, and understanding why some lung cancers are more likely to spread is vital for developing better, more personalised treatments. "Research like this is helping to unravel the genetic 'signatures' of different cancers, and will spark ideas for new ways to tackle the disease."

BBC News - Gene clue to how cancer spreads

 

[uscitizen]

Obesity will soon be the number one cause of death in the USA.

 

[waltky]

Good ol' yankee ingenuity...

Skin cells 'turned into neurons' by US scientists
26 May 2011 - A Californian team say they have managed to convert human skin cells directly into functioning brain cells.

The scientists manipulated the process by which DNA is transcribed within foetal skin cells to create cells which behaved like neurons. The technique had previously been demonstrated in mice, says the report in Nature. It could be used for neurological research, and might conceivably be used to create brain cells for transplant.

Reprogrammed skin

The scientists used genetically modified viruses to introduce four different "transcription factors" into foetal skin cells. These transcription factors play a role in the "reading" of DNA and the encoding of proteins within the cell.
Continue reading the main story They found the introduction of these four transcription factors had the effect of switching a small portion of the skin cells into cells which functioned like neurons. Unlike other approaches, the process did not involve the reprogramming of the skin cells into stem cells, but rather the direct transformation of skin cells into neurons.

Marius Wernig, an assistant professor of pathology at Stanford University School of Medicine in California, was one of the researchers. "We showed that it is possible to convert human skins cells directly into nerve cells which look and behave like nerve cells which usually only exist in the brain," he told BBC News. "It was known that it was possible to change a specialised cell back into a stem cell, what's called an induced pluripotent stem cell (iPS), but it was not known whether a specialised cell could be pushed into another direction, other than backwards."

Professor Wernig conceded that there were examples, some dating back many years, where specialised cells have been switched into similar cell types, but he believes this is the first example of where cells have undergone such radical conversion. He believes the immediate application will be in modelling diseases, whereby skin cells from a patient with a known neurological condition could be used to produce new brain cells for research. "It is very very difficult to look into the brain. There is a big skull which protects the brain very well and therefore it's difficult to image," he said. "Everything that can be done at a cellular level is only possible after a patient has died, by which time the disease is usually in the final stages and you have no chance of seeing how the disease develops."

Future treatments

 

[Dabs]

If they ever find a cure for all cancers, it won't be too soon. Too many have lost their lives because of that fucking disease.

 

[FA_Q2]

Frankly, that last line is just bullshit. It might average to 15, but if one has not developed a tumor yet for the mutations to occur in then they can't occur from the first puff now can they?

Gene mutations.

They compared the dna of a tumor with that of the individual and implied that the tumor had mutations. If the person had experienced the same number of mutations then the difference between the two would have been 0.

Do you have any understanding of what cancer is?

This is quite interesting as I would not have expected cancers to be that similar from person to person. Anything to progress fighting cancers in general. Lately I have noticed a scary uptick in the amount of cancers that people are getting. Cigarettes are a minor deal compared to the whole picture. Growing up, from 10 to 20 I only met ONE person with cancer. I now have four in my family. I have a feeling that the statistics have not caught up with the reality, our lifestyles and the chemicals that come with it are causing an alarming cancer rate.

 

[LAfrique]

This is not the first time there has been a "transforming moment" in the study of cancer. Over decades, there have been very promising findings and cures for cancer (most by no bodies) and because the methods were not gold mines for the pharmaceutical industry, they were silenced and swept under the rug.

By the way, cancer is dead or excess cells that the body could not get rid of - my emphasis. And because we live in societies where most of the foods we eat are grown or processed with chemicals not fit for human consumption (an issue well known to the FDA), the body breaks down and fails to properly carry out its functions of cleansing and repairing itself; thus resulting in the rampant growth of needless cells or non-cleansing of dead cells and toxicity. It is no secret that cancerous cells and free radicals cannot thrive in an alkaline environment.

Thus, your defense strategy is to eat whole grain products, vegetables, fresh fruits washed before eating, nuts and seeds. Your eating habit is responsible for problems occurring anywhere in your body. It is also important that you get into some form of daily exercise, and get in the habit of cleansing your colon with enemas or high fiber aids at least twice annually - you will be surprised at its pleasant effect to the general state of your health!

 

[waltky]

Progress against melanoma...

Melanoma drugs help patients live longer
5 June`11 - When Robert Harsh learned that his cancer treatments weren't working, he stocked up on birthday cards and Valentines, so he could still tell wife and three children how much he loved them, even after he was gone.

Two years later, the 43-year-old Maryland state trooper is still celebrating his kids' birthdays in person, thanks to a new drug that has erased all evidence of his melanoma, which had spread from a small skin mole to multiple sites around his lungs. The drug that has kept Harsh alive, called Yervoy, is the first approved therapy to clearly prolong life for patients with metastatic melanoma, according to the Food and Drug Administration, which approved the therapy in March. Yervoy is one of a dozen or so new melanoma therapies that, for the first time, is giving doctors and patients reason to hope, says Timothy Turnham of the Melanoma Research Foundation.

Melanoma is difficult to treat, rarely responds to traditional chemotherapy and often kills patients within six to nine months. Until recently, the best therapy available helped only about 15% of patients. More than 68,000 Americans were diagnosed with melanoma last year, and about 8,700 died, according to the National Cancer Institute. None of the new drugs has been proved to cure melanoma, in spite of the occasional, spectacular success for patients such as Harsh. But these therapies are helping many patients live longer and setting a new standard of care, says Allen Lichter, CEO of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, which is highlighting melanoma research at its annual meeting this weekend in Chicago.

Researchers are learning about the basic biology of melanoma, finding genetic mutations that drive the disease, and which potentially could be "turned off" with drugs, says Lynn Schuchter, a professor at the the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. Doctors there are so hopeful that, at a recent conference for patients, the hospital celebrated with a champagne toast, Schuchter says. "It's like a Lazarus effect," adds Lichter. "Now, you could argue that melanoma is one of the most active areas of research."

Yervoy, which is now available, acts by revving up the body's immune system, turning off the brakes on key disease fighters called T-cells. In a study of 502 patients presented Sunday, combining Yervoy with chemotherapy helped patients live a median of 11.2 months — two months longer than those given only chemo. But supercharging the immune system can also cause serious side effects. More than half developed serious complications, twice the rate of patients given chemo alone, the study says.

MORE

Lafrique wrote: By the way, cancer is dead or excess cells that the body could not get rid of - my emphasis.

Granny wantin' to know...

... if dey's dead...

... den how come the tumors keep growin'?

 

[whitehall]

Pop-science today depends on lavish research grants. The way to get the grants is to make a grand hypothesis. You throw in a few facts and some factoids and general statistics, mix them with a few long shot (crack pot?) theories and add a little political agenda and some guilt and serve it to the dumbest politician or most wild eyed blog site and wait for the grant money to come rolling in.

 

[Old Rocks]

So if we give out 50 grants like the one for the study of the class of materials called semi-conductors, and only one proves out like that study. Are you saying that we have wasted money doing that?

A grant for research does not mean the research is going to be wildly successful. It means that we will have another bit of the big picture. A bit that may be very useful down the road.