[Guest]

Okay, I had this idea for a cure for cancer, which it turns out other people have recently had. I was learning about viruses in science, and viruses only target SPECIFIC kinds of cells. So, could specified cell be a certain kind of cancerous cell, or even cancerous cells in general? Theoretically, yes. Here's a webpage on it, though I may be linking you to page 3

Virus cure

Lol this is making me think of I am Legend.

[Guest]

There was an episode of house when a boy accidently infected a woman with herpes (apparently it's not only sexually transmitted). The woman had cancer and her tumor shrunk because of the herpes. She wasn't cured, but I think she got some extra time. And herpes is caused by a virus, so I think this is relevant to the topic.

[Guest]

Yea, I'd say its relevant. I've watched a few House episodes myself, gotta say good show. Mixture of a detective and drama (with me liking the detective part)

[Izzy]

Thinking as I'm typing (meaning I haven't formed an opinion yet haha).. but..

Well, viruses can only inject their information into cells with a specific protein on the outside, which is how the virus recognizes the cell. For this to work, cancer cells would have to be distinguishable from other cells to viruses based on their exterior. Otherwise, you're inserting something into your body capable of mass destruction (because you can't direct the virus). Since cancer cells are just cells misreplicating during cell division, I somehow doubt this would lead to a change in their protein (or sugar?) layer. Chances are, the virus would end up targetting all, say lung cells, and the consequences may be much worse than having cancer. ..If not the same, because perfectly healthy cells are still being compromised.

Man, I had an awesome idea for the cure for cancer, but I can't remember it anymore. Something about lysosomes, I think.

[Guest]

I don't know much about cancer cells, but I know that they're related to telomerase, which is an enzyme that prevents loss of DNA during mitosis (more precisely it restores the DNA that is lost everytime the cell divides, according to Wikipedia). An overproduction of this enzyme causes the cell to divide itself indefinitely, without aging like normal cells do, thus generating tumors. I'm kind of posting my own interpretation, so you might want to check the article for more accurate information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomerase

Anyway, if a virus could somehow neutralize the telomerase in the damaged cells, they wouldn't be able to replicate indefinitely, and would eventually die because of the shortening of the DNA. But that presents 3 problems:

1) Finding a way to make a virus neutralize telomerase.

2) Making the virus affect only damaged cells. Otherwise that part of the person's body would age faster, which sounds pretty bad to me.

3) Stop the virus once it's work is done. Or you'll be dead in 24 hours instead of 6 months (that also happened in House)

Now, I've only read one page of the article, but from what I saw, it looks like they're way ahead of us while we discuss high school biology. My point is: the researchers studied that for years. Anything we can think about, they certainly have already considered. Nevertheless, discussing is a great way to learn.

And yeah, you linked page 3. Here's page 1: http://health.howstuffworks.com/medicine/modern/cure-for-cancer-virus.htm

[Izzy]

That sounds.. awesome, but tricky.

Man, I'm really wishing I could remember what my cancer cure entailed. We were discussing cells in biology, and I came up with something involving lysosomes, and my teacher just smiled and was like "I have a senior doing his EE on that. " So, I'm assuming whatever I thought of is already being looked into, but it really was a good idea. =/

[Guest]

Well, lysosomes are a crucial part in the cells "digestive system", and cancerous cells have to consume more food because they divide more often, so maybe using that to tell cancer cells from normal cells? It's probably way off, but maybe it will help you remember

[EDM]

Nah.....I asked my bio teacher about this long back.......and i had another idea, too.....but that didn't seem ok, either....

You see, since viruses mutate quickly, if you try to fix one part of the specific cell, the viruses are easily capable of mutating and adapting to the new modified cell.......thereby causing cancer anyway........

Have you heard of modification of genes?

by using restriction enzymes, one can cut DNA at specific locations which can be linked to a Plasmid DNA (i went there as i remembered plasmid here.....)......which acts as a vector to be inserted into the host organism......I thought about using this method to cure cancer (or atleast create a cure for it), but since viruses are made of RNA and replicate and mutate very fast (because RNA is unstable compared to DNA), this isn't possible either........

*btw....this is just a basic part of what i've got to learn.......

unless we can isolate RNA from a virus in it's inactive state (outside the host) and modify or kill it in a way, i don't think we'll be able to easily cure cancer.......cancerous cells are destroyed when exposed to radiation, but i dunno if this is true for viruses.......anyway, many people have been cancer free due to this method, so it's only a matter of time before a cure is found (without the chopping of hair.......)

Edited August 2, 2010 by EDM

[Guest]

Okay, here's a quote from Wikipedia

Large-scale mutations involve the deletion or gain of a portion of a chromosome. Genomic amplification occurs when a cell gains many copies (often 20 or more) of a small chromosomal locus, usually containing one or more oncogenes and adjacent genetic material. Translocation occurs when two separate chromosomal regions become abnormally fused, often at a characteristic location. A well-known example of this is the Philadelphia chromosome, or translocation of chromosomes 9 and 22, which occurs in chronic myelogenous leukemia, and results in production of the BCR-abl fusion protein, an oncogenic tyrosine kinase

So if some forms of cancer do affect the proteins, then we can cure THOSE kinds of cancer? The problem with radiation is that it has negative effects on both the cancerous and non-cancerous cells.

Another Idea: Don't viruses attach to the protein, and like inject in the genetic information, which essentially reprograms the cell to make more of the viruses? Perhaps we could genetically engineer a virus that injects genetic information that reprograms the cell to NOT be cancerous? Of course, said virus would not be able to reproduce on its own without that genetic information. Because aren't viruses rather simple compared to most organisms, and with proper understanding could be really "reprogrammed"? But is our understanding of genetic information enough to do that?

And another quote from wikipedia:

Virus particles (known as virions) consist of two or three parts: the genetic material made from either DNA or RNA, long molecules that carry genetic information;

\

So some viruses do use DNA, and not RNA.

Edited August 2, 2010 by NickFleming

[Guest]

... Because aren't viruses rather simple compared to most organisms, and with proper understanding could be really "reprogrammed"? But is our understanding of genetic information enough to do that?

I don't think so, not yet. Researchers are using existing viruses rather than trying to modify them, so they probably don't have the knowledge and technology yet. Maybe in a few years. When you think about it, modifying viruses sounds like Resident Evil or Prototype, but lets see what happens.

[Guest]

Another wikipedia quote

Viruses are important to the study of molecular and cellular biology as they provide simple systems that can be used to manipulate and investigate the functions of cells.

And see wikipedia article on virotherapy.

Turns out I'm not the only one who's thought of it, and they're pretty far. I can see it now: New York Times, Washington Post, etc. Headline: Cure for Cancer?

@ br: Yeah, I don't see why we'd start from scratch when we can reprogram. And have you seen the new I Am Legend Movie? Remember what caused it was a cure for cancer.

Edited August 2, 2010 by NickFleming

[EDM]

And see wikipedia article on virotherapy.

Turns out I'm not the only one who's thought of it, and they're pretty far. I can see it now: New York Times, Washington Post, etc. Headline: Cure for Cancer?

@ br: Yeah, I don't see why we'd start from scratch when we can reprogram. And have you seen the new I Am Legend Movie? Remember what caused it was a cure for cancer.

First; i hope you're not the type of person who believes everything you see on TV.......movies are not always facts........

Second; about viruses having DNA.......yes, they do......but if you read wikipedia on viruses (hence your quote)......you'll see that they use an RNA mechanism, or something like that....(I'm not going into the details; i dislike referring to my txtbk.........)

Thankfully, as implied in my previous post, radiation is helpful; if we can use radiation in small amounts to 'modify' cancer specific cells, we might be able to come up with something.....

*Bioinformatics and the Human Genome Project is the key to come up with a cure......but till then; Eat Your Veggies and Fruits!!! :D

Edited August 2, 2010 by EDM

[Guest]

Radiation shouldn't be the definitive cure, because effects can be rather unpredictable. Remember, UV radiation can cause cancer in the first place. And no, I don't believe the I am Legend nonsense, just reminded me We really have yet to understand exactly how to implement radiation correctly. And I really only skimmed over virus section lol. I'll have to look into Human Genome Project and Bioinformatics after I finish this thing for project

Edited August 2, 2010 by NickFleming

[EDM]

I know radiation is bad, that's why i believe in the science of bioinformatics and the HGP working out......with a huge database like that, we can make breakthroughs in finding a cure for such awful diseases (no, not for cloning and all that bakwas (nonsense)....... )

[Guest]

But its hard to manipulate microscopic things, and they're fragile too. I apologize if I don't seem to know what I'm talking about, I don't really have time to look at it, only to get on BD and post replies every few minutes (im working on a project)

[Guest]

Just to clarify the DNA-virus thing:

All living beings (except viruses) have both DNA and RNA, and both play a role in cell division and metabolism in general.

Viruses, on the other hand, have either DNA or RNA, depending on the virus, which is why they don't have any metabolism whatsoever unless they're inside a cell. DNA-viruses use the cells RNA to complete their processes (I don't know the exact name of the processes, something with transcription and translation) and RNA-viruses use the cells DNA.

[EDM]

yep, that's right......transcription and then translation.......

[Guest]

I just thought of something. If the cancer was passed to all the parts of th body, you wouldn't die. You'd just be extremely big.

[EDM]

no...it would kill you......something about it weakening you and all that......

[Guest]

Yeah. I know. But it's interesting to think about.

[EDM]

What would happen if cancer causing viruses had cancer......funny thought, huh?

[plasmid]

Thought I'd add a comment since this is the field I'm going into soon. Oncolytic (or cancer killing) viruses have been under development since at least the mid 90s or so and have made it to various stages of clinical trials. The fundamental idea is pretty much what you said: find a way to make a virus infect and kill specifically tumor cells, and you'll have eradicated the tumor.

How to specifically target a cancer is sort of tricky. Some tumors do express unusual proteins, or more commonly they overexpress proteins that are normally regulated at much lower levels, and many groups have inserted binding sites into viral coat proteins that will make the virus attach to tumor cells and preferentially infect them. Other people are trying to use the patients' white blood cells, which have some degree of ability to recognize cancer cells as abnormal, and attach the viral particles to those white blood cells to home them in on the tumor. Or you can go with a more low-tech approach and simply inject the virus straight into the tumor mass. But targeting at the level of infection might not be totally necessary. Viruses like adenovirus have to overcome host defenses and drive the cell to survive and grow in order to replicate efficiently. One of the ways it does that is by making a protein that inactivates p53, a major regulator of cell division. It turns out that many cancers have developed mutated or otherwise inactivated forms of p53 as part of the process that made the cells start to grow out of control. So one of the earliest oncolytic viruses that went to clinical trials was an adenovirus where they removed the protein that inactivates p53. That virus can't replicate in normal cells that have p53, but can grow in and kill cancer cells that already have inactivated p53.

The other question is: what sort of cargo should the virus carry? A relatively normal virus might just have a viral genome, in which case it infects a cell and replicates and kills the host cell in the process. But it's also possible to make virus-like particles where the viral genome is replaced by whatever other DNA or RNA you want the virus to carry - that's pretty much the basis for gene therapy. One of the slick tricks that people have tried is using viruses to deliver a cytosine deaminase gene to tumors. The cytosine deaminase can then convert 5-fluorocytosine (which is nontoxic) into 5-fluorouracil. 5-fluorouracil happens to be a chemotherapy agent. That means you get a lot of chemo produced specifically at the infected cells, which would theoretically deliver a high dose to the infected cells as well as any cells nearby that haven't been infected. Those cells would be exposed to a toxic dose of chemo, but by the time it diffuses out of the tumor where it's produced the concentration would be much lower and not have the same side effects as standard chemotherapy now.

Variations on the theme are emerging, too. A lot of interest is being drawn by the fact that the immune system can to some degree attack cancer cells, but doesn't do a good enough job of it in patients who have growing cancers. People are trying to use viruses to make cells express the abnormal proteins characteristic of some tumors as well as immune stimulating signals, hoping that the immune cells will see them in the setting of those immune activating signals and therefore have a better chance of learning to recognize them as targets.

So far, none of these has made it through all the clinical trials and shown enough effectiveness to get FDA approval. And ever since the clinical trials of gene therapy for SCID that resulted in some of the patients later developing leukemia (due to the fact that the virus they used has a tendency to insert its DNA near a growth-promoting gene in the host cell) a lot of the inital enthusiasm for things along the lines of gene therapy such as oncolytic viruses has dissipated. It's still an evolving field, and very cool science, but no blockbuster drugs have come out of it yet.

[gvg]

Very interesting. My grandpa had a fight with bone cancer for the past couple of years (he's better now, and driving ) and if these viruses that you have described were an option, he would have avoided a lot of the pain he went through (I'm assuming). Is anybody anywhere close to successful development of such a virus, or no? If you would have to give an estimation of the possible time it would take for such a cure to be on the market as an option, what would you say?

[EDM]

I had a very interesting thought yesterday: If we could use the principles of mutation and modification, we could modify 'anti-viruses', like anti-biotics. And if the virus mutates, the 'anti-viruses' would mutate to cancel the virus out.....

[gvg]

Could that work? That would be AMAZING. After we do the big ones, we're taking out the cold. Hate it.

[EDM]

I think it can....the only glitch in this is that there should be a way to modify DNA to mutate to neutralise.....

Or....maybe if we modify RNA to sort of 'cooperate' with DNA (no, not translation or transcription, etc.).....then it could do the job!!!