h a l f b a k e r yPoint of hors d'oevre
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
As I write this, possibly my most HalfBaked Idea ever, the
tagline
under the photograph/picture of the croissant-on-a-dish states,
"Outside the bag the box came in." Very appropriate, and thus
encouraged, I continue....
An important aspect of this Idea is "telomerase", which was the
subject
of another Idea (linked). While it is known that all
cancers are associated with telomerase, which in turn is
associated with cellular immortality, the evidence so far
indicates
that that enzyme is not, itself, a cancer-causing substance.
So, let us start by thinking about a single cancerous cell. It has
abandoned its normal function as part of the body, and is
focusing
all its efforts into reproducing itself. Let us pretend the cell is
basically announcing to the body, "I don't wanna die! I reject
the
cellular coordination that forces me toward limited lifespan!"
Well, there are two ways to Answer that attitude. One, the one
typically pursued by modern medical science is, "Kill it before it
spreads!" The other way to answer that attitude, however, is
what this Idea is all about. See the subtitle?
Remember that in order to become immortal, the cancer cell
produces telomerase, which in turn repairs the "telomeres" at
the
ends of each strand of DNA in the chromosomes of the cell
nucleus. At some point after that happens, the cell initiates
the
cell-division process. We need to learn more about the actual
trigger or triggers of that process, and I'm confident that we
eventually will.
Now we have two cancer cells, both of which start producing
telomerase, to repeat the cycle. Here is where we want to
invoke
Idealized Cancer Control. We want to kill ONE of the two cells,
and "explode" it, so that the telomerase it produced gets
released
into the body, generally. The other cell, we allow to repeat its
cycle, producing a second cancer cell.
After that second cancer cell is produced, we again kill ONE of
the two cells, exploding it so its telomerase gets released into
the
body. A major reason this Idea is HalfBaked is, I'm not sure
how to only kill one of two cancer cells. Perhaps
nanotechnology will one day be capable of it, but for now, all
we can do is assume it can eventually be accomplished.
Anyway, remember that the linked Idea states that once in the
body,
telomerase can infuse into any other cell, and cause it to repair
its telomeres. That cell is still healthy, still functioning
normally, but if it needs to divide, it can now do so, instead of
growing old and dying.
With ENOUGH cancerous cells in the body, being destroyed half
the time by Idealized Cancer Control, the overall body then
receives enough telomerase, so that the whole body can live
normally AND immortally. The dissension represented by the
cancerous cells has indeed been directed toward a constructive
outcome!
Other Telomerase Idea
Telomerase_20Production_20Hormone As mentioned in the main text. [Vernon, May 11 2015]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
|
The idea of beneficial cancer cells is pretty outside-of-
the-box, but I think there some major problems with it:
There are many old, proven effective ways to express
telomerase using gene therapy, so the idea is solving a
problem that doesnt exist, in a scary way. |
|
|
I pretty sure the assumption that telomerase can pass
through cell walls is wrong. Telomerase is a pretty large
(about 150000 AMU) molecule, about 10 times as large as
some common viruses. Telomerase doesnt have special
structures for sticking too and penetrating cell walls the
way viruses do, so I dont think itd be able to. |
|
|
This is a good idea, but unfortunately is based on the
wrong biology. |
|
|
Telomerase is not a hormone, it's an enzyme (actually
an enzyme complex). As soon as it gets released
from a cell, it's going to get proteolysed and, even if
it weren't, it's not going to get into another cell
(except uptake for the express porpoise of destroying
it). |
|
|
//I'm not sure how to only kill one of two cancer
cells.// Well, you and many others. |
|
|
//the overall body then receives enough telomerase,
so that the whole body can live normally AND
immortally. // Uh, no three times. Periodic
expression of telomerase in cells is one of the
necessities for them to be immortal, but it's almost
certainly not sufficient. |
|
|
Overall, a good idea marred only by the erroneous
foundation, lack of plausible mechanism, and
uncertain outcome. |
|
|
// A major reason this Idea is HalfBaked is, I'm not sure how to only kill one of two cancer cells. ...nanotechnology...// |
|
|
That's pretty much why the idea isn't _even_ halfbaked. |
|
|
Suppose we had nanotechnology capable of doing this. If we could do that, we could certainly more easily kill both cancer cells, and efficiently repair the old, damaged cells using our apparently capable and mature nanotechnology. |
|
|
//remember that the linked Idea states that once in the body, telomerase can infuse into any other cell,// |
|
|
Yeah, that's still not true. |
|
|
" Overall, a good idea marred only by the erroneous foundation, lack of plausible mechanism, and uncertain outcome. " |
|
|
[CraigD] and others, I'm pretty sure tests have been
made with injected telomerase (into the bloodstream),
and the enzyme DOES penetrate cell walls and rebuild
telomeres. What most certainly can't work is trying to
take it in a pill, because stomach acids destroy
telomerase. |
|
|
[MaxwellBuchanan], thanks for the enzyme/hormone
correction. Yes, I'm quite aware of this Idea's
fundamental weakness, needing a mechanism that still
needs to be figured-out. The way nanotech research is
going, however, well, that's why I decided to post this
Idea, anyway. I might note that I actually had this Idea
years and years ago, but held off posting it at least
partly because of that problem --which I now think is
solvable. |
|
|
//I'm pretty sure tests have been made with injected telomerase (into the bloodstream), and the enzyme DOES penetrate cell walls and rebuild telomeres.// |
|
|
Well, if you could provide a link to that it would help. |
|
|
I just tried googling "injected telomerase" (without quotes) and the top links are these: |
|
|
> Telomerase as a Fountain of Youth
> 1 Nov 2012 - But the body keeps telomerase locked in a strongbox*, and ... You can't eat telomerase or even inject it, because it is only effective inside the ... |
|
|
> Telomerase Gene Therapy Extends Lives Of Mice By Up To ...
> 24 May 2012 - After being injected with the telomerase gene, adult and old mice lived 24 percent and 13 percent longer, respectively. |
|
|
> Harvard team successfully reverses the aging process in mice
> 29 Nov 2010 - Then, they gave the mice injections to re-activate the telomerase enzyme expecting to see the aging process slow down to normal levels. |
|
|
> Telomerase gene therapy in adult and old mice delays ...
> 15 May 2012 - See "Telomerase gene therapy: a novel approach to combat aging" in .... from AAV9-mTERT injected mice compared to AAV9-eGFP controls ... |
|
|
and many more in that vein. |
|
|
I only quickly scanned the top three, and they either flat out say injecting telomerase doesn't help (the top one) or clearly say that the process involved some sort of gene therapy. I think you're probably mis-remembering that. |
|
|
And quite apart from that - your planned benefit is to release the telomerase by 'exploding' the dead cells. |
|
|
I have a couple of issues with that:
The amount of telomerase present is going to be tiny.
The amount of non-telomerase substances is orders of magnitude larger.
When cells die in a multicellular organism, they typically attempt to undergo a process known as 'programmed cell death', or apoptosis. They do this so as to not spew their innards around, because that has deleterious consequences. |
|
|
//clearly say that the process involved some sort of gene
therapy// |
|
|
If the general public will just let us d*ck around with viruses
routinely, we can get a lot done. I think a re-branding is
necessary, "Synthetic protein encapsulated gene delivery
system" or something. |
|
|
// I'm pretty sure tests have been made with
injected telomerase (into the bloodstream), and the
enzyme DOES penetrate cell walls and rebuild
telomeres.// I'm pretty sure not. |
|
|
//If the general public will just let us d*ck around
with viruses routinely, we can get a lot done.// Tell
me about it. Safety concerns of one sort or another
are currently responsible for the net deaths of about
50 million people annually*, and the number is
increasing. |
|
|
(*That's quite a conservative estimate. It's not
unreasonable to estimate the number at closer to 500
million.) |
|
|
I am not sure why a random normal cell would want telomerase, to repair its telomeres. It should not want it; that sort of repair is disallowed for cells in its caste. |
|
|
Stem cells which do repair their own telomeres make their own stem quality telomerase to do it. Why would a patrician stem cell wipe off telomerase spewed from some loathsome dying mutant and use that on itself? |
|
|
//net deaths of about 50 million people annually// |
|
|
"Ah, cystic fibrosis is it? Lovely, have that sorted in a jiffy. A
few jabs of this here wt CFTR lentivirus, see the
receptionist on the way out for cancer screening if you
would. Next!" |
|
|
Exactly. Not to mention HIV, most cancers, Alzheimer's... in fact pretty much anything
that people die of. |
|
|
My estimate is that the insistence on removing absolutely all risk from research
currently slows progress by about 30%. I'm taking 1960 as a baseline (ie, the time at
which risk and progress were reasonably balanced, so research could be said not to be
slowed). So, if you guesstimate the number of people who die annually of diseases that
are likely to be treatable soon, and factor in the amount by which those treatments
have been delayed, you get some very very huge numbers. |
|
|
Some of the regulations are supposed to protect either patients (fine - though someone
dying of bone cancer might be appalled at some of the stupidity that's in place to
protect them and their data); or the public (fine again, though a lot of the regulations
have no benefit and avert no risks). However, a lot of the regulations are there to
protect the researchers, and I object to that. If I believe strongly that something is
worthwhile, and that it may save lives or prevent misery, I think I have every right to
put my life on the line to pursue it. |
|
|
Phew. Good job I'm taking these rant-prevention pills. |
|
|
//Phew. Good job I'm taking these rant-prevention
pills// |
|
|
I'd wager that they're performing no better than placebo
right now. I picked CF because it's such a glaring example. |
|
|
Benefits:
Fertility,
Ability to digest food and no more handfulls of pills per
meal,
No diabetes and associated daily insulin,
No dependence on (multiple) daily chest physiotherapy,
Cons:
You *might* get cancer, which we could have a
reasonable stab at treating. |
|
|
Yep, CF's a good one. Current median age of death is
about late 20's. I think if you offered a hundred mid-
20's CF sufferers the option to undergo an
experimental treatment with a 25% chance of cure,
25% chance of being fatal (which is very pessimistic)
and 50% chance of doing nothing, maybe 10-20 of
them would go for it. |
|
|
But what vexes me more is the view that there must
be zero risk not only for patients, but for the
researchers. And the public must be protected not
only from actual risks (however small) but from risks
which are nonsensical. It's as if the lives of patients
count for nothing - a 0.0001% risk to a researcher or
to the public far outweighs a 50% risk to the patient. |
|
|
People die, all the time, every single second of the
day, because of shit like this. |
|
|
At work, we spent a day learning how to do risk
assessments. There is (I would guess) a <<0.1%
chance that it saved one of us (based on the fatality
rate in the days before risk assessments).
Meanwhile, if you calculate the number of lives saved
by therapeutics coming out of my [former] lab, and
delay them all by one working day, you've killed
maybe a dozen people. You really truly have. |
|
|
<knocks back another pill> |
|
|
// what about the lives saved by a researcher
continuing with research over a lifetime ? // |
|
|
When I talked about net fatalities, that included the
fantastically small number of potentially dead
researchers, and the lives they may have saved. |
|
|
Seriously, disease is a war. Lots of people get killed.
More people are killed by disease than by any war
you care to name. But our army has strict
instructions not to do anything at all risky. |
|
|
Could somebody please get me off this topic? I can
see it's not going to lead anywhere. |
|
|
Are those rant prevention pills over the counter or special order? Do you have enough to share? |
|
|
I whipped them up in the lab late one night. |
|
|
//Seriously, disease is a war.// |
|
|
It's more like Whack-a-mole*. Statins reduce heart
attacks, result in more heart failure and cancer,
Alzheimer's etc. But you're right, Whack-a-mole is hard
when you have one hand tied behind your back an the
other hand spends 73% of it's time not whacking moles. |
|
|
*2 ripe avocados roughly fork-mashed, 1/2 small red
onion finely chopped, 4 cloves garlic, utterly smashed,
medium fleshy tomato in 1/16ths, teaspoon of sea salt,
juice of a lime. Should totally fill a 1 pt mason jar, add
pits if not. |
|
| |