h a l f b a k e r yThe embarrassing drunkard uncle of invention.
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,
|
|
|
Trained Virus
Designer Viruses that attack the specific patients cancer cells, ninja style. | |
Biopsy a malignant tumor from the patient, place the tissue in an incubator, infect the tissue with a GM virus (The GM virus was created by removal of a gene (called E1B-19kD) that viruses use to disguise themselves, and which prevents cells from noticing they have been infected.), let them pick up the
genetic material from the cancer cell, then inject them into the patient.
You must watch this TED talk.
http://www.ted.com/...re_of_medicine.html
MUST! [2 fries shy of a happy meal, Aug 21 2010]
[link]
|
| |
Or read the science-fiction story where the guy dying of cancer is sent out to meet the killer robot fleet, and slips them a tumor when they ask for a tissue sample, "just out of curiosity, why do you ask, human?" (Saberhagen's Berserker series.) |
|
| |
Although giving us a gene number is a lot better than most GM handwaving, I've gotta say this is probably obvious to the gene-tamperers. If it would work, I mean. |
|
| |
// obvious to the gene-tamperers // |
|
| |
This is good apart from making no sense. |
|
| |
Setting aside the obvious radical oversimplifications here,
how and why do you want the viruses to pick up DNA from
the cancer cell? Viruses don't do this in general (though
some can, rarely). And how would DNA from the cancer cell
make the virus kill other cancer cells? And since almost all
the DNA in a cancer cell is identical to that in normal cells... |
|
| |
...I mean, basically, what are you talking about? |
|
| |
// This is good apart from making no sense. // |
|
| |
I don't think this globally "doesn't make sense," it's just
got so many strong assumptions that it probably wouldn't
work,
plus a large
unexplained detail (vs. another assumption). The
assumptions are: |
|
| |
1)Cancerous cells are normally killed by an immune
reaction against mutated genetic material or products of
the mutated gene.
2) "Successful" cancers succeed by escaping this immune
surveillance.
3) If the immune response were reactivated at a much
later than normal stage of the cancer it would still be
effective |
|
| |
The idea is to extract the mutated gene from cancer cells,
and express it in normal cells lacking the ability to
evade the immune response (using a virus as a vector) |
|
| |
It's assumed (4) that this would provoke an immune
response which would (5) be curative, or, at least,
therapeutic. |
|
| |
Of course, if the virus gives the normal cells the ability to
evade an immune response, the exercise is futile: that's
why the virus must lack E1B-19kD (or whatever else it
normally uses for that purpose). |
|
| |
It is further assumed that 6a) expression of any non-
cancerous genes transferred to the non-cancer cells will be
harmless or 6b) some unspecified technique will be used
to select only vectors containing the cancer gene. |
|
| |
The logic seems fine -- the problem, so it seems to me, is
with the premises. (Of course deliberately transducing
normal cells with a cancer gene seems like an odd
way to treat cancer.) |
|
| |
Geez, when did this site become "bash the contributor"?
It was just a thought. I know that viruses splice their DNA into the DNA of the invaded cell, and that's where I was going with this. |
|
| |
// when did this site become "bash the contributor"? // |
|
| |
It's kind of always been that way; your problem with this idea is that there's more than one HalfBaker with serious in-depth knowledge of this topic. |
|
| |
If you're going to post an idea like this, you'd better be damned sure of your biochemistry; the telegraph wires are crowded from end to end with impatient vultures, just aching for a chance to flap down and peck at your liver while it's still warm. |
|
| |
s/biochemistry/molecular immunology/ Mmmm, warm liver.
Yummm. |
|
| |
Sorry, [mhuppertz], it was actually intended as a *defense* of
the idea, though I guess it didn't seem that way. |
|
| |
I for one liked your discussion of actual assumptions amidst the general snarkiness, mouseposture. Thanks. |
|
| |
> Close enough to be [Marked-for-Deletion] ? |
|
| |
It's only magic if the author doesn't care how the details actually work - here, I think the author is thinking about specific mechanisms, and has some model that the Virus is somehow "trained" to attack a specific kind of cell, or maybe stores (parts of?) that target cell in its own DNA, and we could probably talk in more detail about how this does, or doesn't, work. |
|
| |
//general snarkiness// He's my kinda soldier. |
|
| |
Well, it's certainly half-baked. |
|
| |
There's so many large gaps in the description that we're filling them in with different models. And none of those even seem plausible. |
|
| |
mhuppertz, could you expand on your description? |
|
| |
Yes, retroviruses (a subset of all viruses) integrate into the host's DNA. But how does that help the cancer patient?
* Are the viruses supposed to target cancer cells after growing on them for a few generations? - That's rather unlikely.
* Is the immune system supposed to target uninfected cancer cells after exposure to infected cells? Again, probably won't happen. |
|
| |
A quick google suggests that the gene you mention knocking out inhibits apoptosis (the cell killing itself in response to being infected). So non-cancerous cells wouldn't propagate the virus, they'd kill themselves instead. So is the idea that the virus would run amok inside the tumours (since cancer cells don't undergo programmed cell death)? That may well happen, but you'd still be producing stackloads of infective virus particles, each capable of killing a healthy cell. Then the immune system would kick in, mop up all virons everywhere and you'd be back to square one. Only sicker.
Also, if that's the plan, you don't need biopsy/preincubation step - you might as well just introduce the virus to the tumour directly. |
|
| |