Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Cell Division Reversed for the First Time

samzenpus posted more than 8 years ago | from the two-in-one dept.

238

SubtleGuest writes "Gary J. Gorbsky, Ph.D., a scientist with the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, has found a way to reverse the process of cell division. The discovery could have important implications for the treatment of cancer, birth defects and numerous other diseases and disorders. Gorbsky's findings appear in the April 13 issue of the journal Nature. "No one has gotten the cell cycle to go backwards before now," said Gorbsky. "This shows that certain events in the cell cycle that have long been assumed irreversible may, in fact, be reversible." In the lab, Gorbsky and his OMRF colleagues were able to control the protein responsible for the division process, interrupt and reverse the event, sending duplicate chromosomes back to the center of the original cell, an event once thought impossible. Here is a video of it happening."

cancel ×

238 comments

hmm.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15119116)

first dna and proteins... and then we can reverse time!

Re:hmm.. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15119123)

is this video playing backwards?

This is where to see more... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15119122)

There is a lot more info at http://www.gimpshop.com/ [gimpshop.com]

The way it really happens (4, Funny)

WhatsAProGingrass (726851) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119124)

And here [nature.com] is the video of cell division. only its played in reverse.

WhatsAPro.com [whatsapro.com]

Re:The way it really happens (4, Funny)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119226)

"And here [nature.com] is the video of cell division."

Why is this outrageous video not labeled "not safe for work" or something?!

Re:The way it really happens (-1, Offtopic)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119277)

Why do people insist on posting movies in Quicktime format?

Stem Cells (0)

lunch_box4 (940873) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119125)

I'm wondering if with unlimited resourses, the process could be performed enough times to revert the cell to a stem cell. Just a thought.

Re:Stem Cells (1, Insightful)

rdwald (831442) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119151)

I'm wondering if with unlimited resourses, the process could be performed enough times to revert the cell to a stem cell. Just a thought.

No.

Re:Stem Cells (2, Informative)

lazybratsche (947030) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119426)

Slightly longer answer:

No, because this isn't a complete reversal of cell division. It doesn't somehow "un-replicate" the DNA, it just reverses one step of division in a cell about to divide.

sigh (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15119403)

There really should be a -1 Idiot rating.

Does this mean ... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15119126)

It might not be too late to 'take back' that decision you made to have children 10 years ago?

Re:Does this mean ... (1)

JavaFTW++ (964323) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119272)

Only if you can reverse the drinking that was involved as well...

Good news everyone! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15119129)

A fate worse than death faces the one subjected to this - prebirth!

Re:Good news everyone! (1)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119224)

...and then death.

Good news! (0, Offtopic)

protich (961854) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119131)

Kiss old age good-bye.

Re:Good news! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15119392)

and hello a fate worse than death.... UNBIRTH!!!...... then death

We've been at war with cancer for over 50 years... (2, Interesting)

80 85 83 83 89 33 (819873) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119133)

... and we are loosing that war. i've heard many times, and have even caught myself saying, that there will be a cure for cancer soon. hasn't happened yet. so whenever i hear:

important implications for the treatment of cancer

i get my hopes up for a little while, just as most of the world has since the War on Cancer was officially announced in the 50's, and untold amounts of money have been spent by the NIH. but the truth is, i probably need to quit smoking to have the best chance at not dying from cancer.

-- sorry, my uncle just died from lymphoma this weekend, and i keep staring at the cigarette i'm smoking with a pained look.

Re:We've been at war with cancer for over 50 years (1)

filament (916631) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119150)

There is no 'cure' for cancer because it is not one disease, but many. Most so-called 'cures' for cancer are actually new treatments that generally target a specific form of cancer. Some of them are very successful, and the recovery rate is always increasing, but at the same time we expose ourselves to more and more chemicals and unhhealthy foods that can lead to cancer. I doubt there will ever be a cancer cure-all, but your chances of survival - and recovery - are much higher than fifty years ago.

And yes, you should quit smoking. Right now.

Re:We've been at war with cancer for over 50 years (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15119163)

In Canada (I'm sure the USA is similar), the overall cancer rate is now 1 in 2 ... that's right 50% of the population will contract cancer at some point in their life (most of those will eventually die from it).

Here's the real shocker. The Government response can be pretty much summed up as "Don't worry, be happy" ... it has nothing to do with the tens of thousands of kilograms of carcinogens dumped into the environment or otherwise thrust upon us ... usually for econonmic reasons. I guess it has reach a point where we are counting the number of times each person gets cancer per decade, before it is worth checking out that "ounce of prevention" thing.

Re:We've been at war with cancer for over 50 years (5, Insightful)

John Miles (108215) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119178)

In Canada (I'm sure the USA is similar), the overall cancer rate is now 1 in 2 ... that's right 50% of the population will contract cancer at some point in their life (most of those will eventually die from it). Here's the real shocker. The Government response... (snip rant about carcinogens)

You're the victim of a very fundamental misunderstanding. The overall cancer death rate is actually 1 in 1. If you live long enough, you will eventually die of cancer. It's a perfectly-normal consequence of telomere loss due to aging.

As we get better at preventing and treating heart disease and other vascular problems like stroke, it's only reasonable to expect cancer death rates to rise. It is not reasonable to start leaping to wild-assed conclusions about carcinogens, cell phones, and conspiracies. None of those are the problem. The problem is that most of the low-hanging fruit in the health-care business has been picked, and only the hard problems like cancer (which, as others have noted, refers to a great variety of different diseases) remain.

Re:We've been at war with cancer for over 50 years (4, Interesting)

Stickerboy (61554) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119248)

Not only that, but many cancers are now curable if caught early enough. Especially cancers that are most common in children and young adults, because typically the tissues and cells that are in overdrive in the developing stages (and most susceptible to becoming cancerous) are less active in adulthood.

Good examples of cancers with excellent cure rates are Wilm's tumor [wikipedia.org] , acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) [emedicine.com] , neuroblastoma [wikipedia.org] ,retinoblastoma [wikipedia.org] , and Hodgkin's lymphoma [wikipedia.org] .

And this is just breaking the tip of the iceberg. Most of that NIH money actually goes to good use, unlike a lot of government spending.

NIH money to good use? (0, Troll)

Ogemaniac (841129) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119476)

That is sure debatable. The primary product of NIH spending is new bioscience PhDs, and there is a tremendous glut of them. Like all government agencies, NIH's primary concern is wasting more money faster.

I would put my money on corporate bioscience research long before I would put in NIH, which has proven itself rather inept by unintentionally creating the 5-year post-doc.

Re:We've been at war with cancer for over 50 years (1)

mj_1903 (570130) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119509)

Sure there are cancers that can be beaten like ALL but what state does it leave the body in to fight off relapses and the obvious immune system deficiences inherent in fighting it? Cases such as this one [thelittleappfactory.com] (story on my company website) are really quite common even though the underlying cancer has been "cured".

The real cure will come when the body can safely shake off cancer and remain in a state that it can survive long term, whether that means the kidneys remain functional or the immune system is not massively compromised. My opinion is that this will only occur when we can synthesize and instruct immune system cells outside the body to attack the underlying cause, whether that be cancer, a virus or even a bacterium. Then they will simply get daily injections of those synthetic cells until they truly are cured.

That day surely cannot be too far away.

Re:We've been at war with cancer for over 50 years (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15119183)

i'm sorry y'all, when i try and quit, i go crazy, i can't think or see straight, and every other thought is "i need a cig". i gave up the harder stuff years ago, but i cna't kick the fucking tobacco.

maybe i'll try and justify it by saying "oh look, the Doctors can sprinkle some of that magic cell-division-reversal-dust on my lungs, and fix all me problems".

Re:We've been at war with cancer for over 50 years (4, Funny)

srn_test (27835) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119215)

It's easy to lower the cancer death rate; make sure people die of something else first!

Males will all eventually get prostate cancer; the rates are rising because they aren't dieing of the things we traditionally died of in the past - communicable diseases, war, accident and heart disease.

If we got out and started a good war, fewer people would die of cancer! Think of Iraq as a big anti-cancer crusade.

Re:We've been at war with cancer for over 50 years (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15119439)

There needs to be a new moderation tag for novel ways of slipping in Iraq jokes into a thread about biology. Sheesh.

Re:We've been at war with cancer for over 50 years (3, Insightful)

Shihar (153932) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119366)

In Canada (I'm sure the USA is similar), the overall cancer rate is now 1 in 2 ... that's right 50% of the population will contract cancer at some point in their life (most of those will eventually die from it).

More people die of cancer because fewer people die of other things. Most (certainly not all) cancer is related to age. We are getting very good at living a very long time compared to what is "natural". The result is that old age disease take a heavier portion of our deaths. We have dramatically slashed the number of deaths to viruses and infection in first world nations.

Even cancer is less of a killer then it used to be. More people get cancer because they live longer, but more people survive cancer then ever. As far as sucking air goes, there has not been a better time to be alive (in terms of life span) so long as you are in a first world nation. It is entirely possible that most kids born in 2000 will live to see 2100. Hell, it is very likely that a large portion of the people who are just now leaving college will live to see 2100.

Re:We've been at war with cancer for over 50 years (3, Interesting)

HappyEngineer (888000) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119172)

sorry, my uncle just died from lymphoma this weekend, and i keep staring at the cigarette i'm smoking with a pained look.

I've always assumed that most smokers are people with untreated ADHD. Has anyone read anything to indicate whether or not this is the case?

The positive effects of smoking (feeling calmed down and more focused) are the same effects of ADHD medication except, obviously, the medication won't cause cancer, it is given in a dose that is consistent through the entire day, and it is not addictive.

I'd be curious to find out if giving a smoker medication for ADHD would make it easier for them to quit.

Re:We've been at war with cancer for over 50 years (2, Informative)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119229)

It wouldn't. A smoker only feels "calmed down" because their craving has been satiated. The physical effects of nicotine increase stress on the brain and heart, they can focus because they're not constantly thinking about when they'll get their next hit, or how long they'll have to wait.

Re:We've been at war with cancer for over 50 years (2, Interesting)

HappyEngineer (888000) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119305)

But nicotine is a stimulant just like ADHD medications are. Are you sure that there aren't multiple things going on at the same time here? I don't know anything about the biology, so you may well be right, but I'd be interested in a url to some information on a correlation or lack thereof between ADHD and smoking. Also, what do you mean by increased stress on the brain?

Re:We've been at war with cancer for over 50 years (1)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119260)

Close, but not quite. I'm the opposite of ADHD. As a kid I could focus intently on one task for hours, oblivious to everything around me. And I didn't smoke as a kid :-) If smokers simply had untreated ADHD, then they would have had ADHD as kids before they learned to smoke.

But you are right in a way. Smoking did calm me down, and after I quit I felt really stupid for about a year because I couldn't focus well.

Re:We've been at war with cancer for over 50 years (3, Informative)

HappyEngineer (888000) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119319)

I can't say whether or not you have ADHD, but I'd just like to correct a misconception that ADHD just implies a lack of attention. The name is a misnomer. ADHD is really about a lack of ability to control attention. An ADHD person will sometimes hyper focus to the exclusion of everything and sometimes have no ability to feel comfortable continuing to do anything for very long. Obviously, everyone falls somewhere on that sort of scale. It's just when someone hits those extremes too often that it is a problem.

Re:We've been at war with cancer for over 50 years (1)

Filip22012005 (852281) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119449)

Many smokers are thought to smoke as self-medication, but it's not just ADHD. Schizophrenia is another example. Anxiety may be too.

Re:We've been at war with cancer for over 50 years (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15119191)

Well, at least it gives hope to those of us who've never smoked, don't go out in the sun without massive sunscreen, and still get cancer at age 21.

Re:We've been at war with cancer for over 50 years (1)

Mprx (82435) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119456)

The massive sunscreen may be responsible. Vitamin D deficiency increases cancer risk.

Re:We've been at war with cancer for over 50 years (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15119192)

dude, u have to make a choice whether you're life is worth saving or not. we all die one day but you have to believe that life is worth it enough to quit smoking .. even if you quit and go back, quit and go back, eventually you'll just quit for good .. it doesn't take an iron will it just takes persistence and believing in that your life will be worth living! :)

Re:We've been at war with cancer for over 50 years (1, Insightful)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119296)

dude, u have to make a choice whether you're life is worth saving or not. we all die one day but you have to believe that life is worth it enough to quit smoking .. even if you quit and go back, quit and go back, eventually you'll just quit for good .. it doesn't take an iron will it just takes persistence and believing in that your life will be worth living! :)

You hit the head on the nail. (purposely reversed)

If we didn't do anyhtign that is supposed to be bad ofr you or cause this problem or that we would lead a very borring life. One has to wonder if that life is worth living. So we ignore some of the threats and add a littel fun to our life and then it becomes more interesting. People who smoke, jump out of airplanes, eat well done meats or whatever are just weighing their pleasures against the long term health.

I have a friend who got a bacteria infection on a heart valve and he needed it replaced. I guess he got it from using dirty needles. The doctors told him he could get a pig heart and live for a certain time while taking some drug that would eventualy kill him or get a mechanical vavle and take even worse drugs. He is smokeing, drinking, doing minor drugs like pot and i asked him why. He said he already knows he is goign to die soon. There is no sence in waiting a few extra years and being miserable in the proccess. I agree with him.

Re:We've been at war with cancer for over 50 years (3, Insightful)

Gorshkov (932507) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119406)

People who don't smoke, drink or do drugs, who eat properly, exercise regularly, watch their fat intake, get plenty of fiber, and do everything else right do NOT, in fact, live longer.

It just SEEMS like it's taking them forever to die.

Re:We've been at war with cancer for over 50 years (1)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119213)

As someone who quit smoking two years ago, let me tell you the easiest way to do it: just do it! It's that simple. There are things that will help, but the core of it is to simply stop.

I woke up one day and said "I'm going to quit next monday." I spent that week tapering off somewhat, and used the patch when I quit. I don't know how much of an effect the tapering and patch had, but they were isignificant compared to the effect of simply quitting.

Re:We've been at war with cancer for over 50 years (1)

Gorshkov (932507) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119420)

I woke up one day and said "I'm going to quit next monday." I spent that week tapering off somewhat, and used the patch when I quit. I don't know how much of an effect the tapering and patch had, but they were isignificant compared to the effect of simply quitting.

This is why there are so many intolerant anti-smoking crusaders out there. "I did it, so you can".

That is catagorically not the case. Some people are more highly addicted than others. For some, the psyc component is stronger, and in others, the physical.

Studies of people with multiple addictions have repetedly shown that of all the "addictions" out there (coke, heroin, booze, etc) that the one the addicts find the most difficult to give up is smoking.

Some people can have a drink and leave the bar. Some can't. Some of those that can't lave the bar will eventually be able to successfully give it up - and some never will.

Society recognises the difficulty addicts have, and the cost to society - and they fund things like needle exchanges, all sorts of rehab and drop in programmes, etc, to try to help them BECAUSE of the difficulty they face in trying to get rid of a highly addictive habit.

All smokers get is taxed to death and intollerance. Just because one approach worked for you - your particular personality, your specific body chemestry, and the wiring of your individual brain does NOT mean that it will work for everybody else.

Yes, a lot of people have quit cold turkey, and quite successfully .... and some have not. Don't assume that it's because "they just didn't try hard enough".

What society needs to do is recognise the difficulty that current smokers have, and try to come up with ways to HELP them, as they do other addicts, not turn them into outcasts who are just considered to have no willpower.

Re:We've been at war with cancer for over 50 years (1)

Chrononium (925164) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119254)

I'm sorry for your loss (really).

cancer scares me (1)

80 85 83 83 89 33 (819873) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119313)

wierd thing about his cancer: they caught it early, over a year ago, and after the surjury the docs said it was contained and had not spread, and even just four weeks ago he was checked out and the docs said it was in complete remission. then BANG, the lymphoma roared back so fast the docs didn't even know what hit him, he went into a coma and died before the MRI and other test results could see what the problem was.... he was in his early sixties... both my grandfathers died of cancer.

Re:cancer scares me (1)

rbarreira (836272) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119356)

You better quit smoking then, since your family MAY have a predisposition for cancer. Which doesn't mean you'll get it, just that it MAY be more probable. At least three people in my near family have died from lung cancer, so if I smoked I'd probably be dead in a couple of years... Admittedly, they all died in their 70's, but I believe it shows something anyway.

Re:cancer scares me (1)

rbarreira (836272) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119363)

And yeah, all of them were heavy smokers.

Re:cancer scares me (1)

Breakfast Pants (323698) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119518)

What is the difference between "MAY be probable" and.. "is probable"? It's "probably probable"? What kind of nonspeak is this?

Re:We've been at war with cancer for over 50 years (1)

Skreems (598317) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119334)

> We've been at war with cancer for over 50 years and we are loosing that war. Loosing that war on who? Loosing it on "ze Germans"?

Re:We've been at war with cancer for over 50 years (1)

lazybratsche (947030) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119400)

Medicine in general is a losing battle. No matter how careful we are, our bodies will accumulate wear as time goes on, from background radiation, necessary metabolic processes, and environmental facters we can control to an extent. Eventually we all die of old age, unless something else kills us first. But modern medicine has now removed the vast majority of non age-related causes of death, such as simple diseases or infections or injuries. Now, essentially, we can only stave off age related health problems for so long, and the longer we try, the greater the cost.

Re:We've been at war with cancer for over 50 years (1)

Scarblac (122480) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119413)

Actually, "cancer" is an umbrella name for a large group of different diseases with different causes and symptoms. More and more of them are curable or at least treatable.

But yeah, quitting smoking would be a good idea for a number of reasons, of course...

Next up: a story about the Cell processor (2, Funny)

wheany (460585) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119152)

There must be a Cell processor story somewhere that Slashdot could post. That would make it three cell stories in a row. It's funny becuase it's repeated.

Re:Next up: a story about the Cell processor (1)

Geminii (954348) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119320)

It's funny because it's repeated?

Re:Next up: a story about the Cell processor (1)

Kredal (566494) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119343)

Yup. It's funny because it's repeated.

ob: BUT STILL NO CURE FOR CANCER! (1)

sxtxixtxcxh (757736) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119161)

/wait... this isn't fark. //my bad.

Re:ob: BUT STILL NO CURE FOR CANCER! (1)

flynns (639641) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119202)

Yeah, I have that problem too.
 
/long live the slashie.

Wow (2, Insightful)

DarkProphet (114727) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119173)

If this is for real, all I can say is

Holy shit!

It would be theoretically possible to create a certain protein which targets cell-specific division. Like cancer cells. It wouldn't eradicate the cancerous cells, but it would certainly slow or possibly stop the cells' replication.

Of course, I imagine the devil's in the details...

Video method? (dumb question) (2, Funny)

SushiFugu (593444) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119176)

I'm quite curious, could someone explain what sort of technology is used to observe chemical reactions at such a small level? (such as that in the video)

Re:Video method? (dumb question) (5, Funny)

dthx1138 (833363) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119217)

I believe it's called a "micro-scope" Microscope [wikipedia.org]

Popular Mechanics hasn't covered this one yet as it's only been around for about 400 years

Re:Video method? (dumb question) (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15119358)

"I believe it's called a "micro-scope" Microscope" No, that was done with the macro of those 2 MP camera-phones. They are so good, you don't need anything else, especially common sense.

Re:Video method? (dumb question) (2, Informative)

rbowes (967998) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119243)

On the left you are seeing phase contrast microscopy, changes in the cell cause changes in the refraction of light. On the right hand you are seeing fluorescence microscopy, special fluorescent proteins have been added on the end of specific proteins in the cell and when certain light is applied they fluoresce.

Re:Video method? (dumb question) (3, Informative)

dukiebbtwin (912572) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119266)

From the article "Time-lapse phasecontrast and fluorescence images were collected from cells grown on glass coverslips using a Zeiss Axiovert 200M microscope equipped with a Hamamatsu ORCA camera." They use a fancy (and expensive) inverted light microscope with a digital camera attached to it to take the images. The section on the right part of the movie is made using with a fluorescence stain as the cell proceeds through mitosis. There is a light source attached to the microscope that emits light at a certain wavelength to excite the fluorescence stain that can be bound to a variety of things - mitochondria, DNA, etc. In this case the fluorescence is bound to alpha-tubulin-GFP. Alpha-tubulin is a protein found in microtubules which are involved with cell shape and cell structure. GFP merely means "Green Fluorescent Protein" - that it will fluoresce in the green wavelength. http://microscope.olympus.com/contentsDB/01world/0 1reseach/a_appli/12/contents.html [olympus.com] Use of fluorescence in biochem is really fascinating, and fortunately I have a good amount of experience as a student using fluorescence as a tool. You can bind several fluorescence probes to a cell and get some really cool images: http://probes.invitrogen.com/servlets/photo?fileid =g002761&company=probes [invitrogen.com]

Re:Video method? (dumb question) (1)

utter_tosser (137550) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119508)

Either confocal microscopy (laser or spinning disk) or widefield time lapse microscopy with image deconvolution. We have six microscopes doing this constantly day in day out

How long until the religious forbid it? (0, Troll)

Cybert14 (952427) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119180)

It'll be either "playing god" or ending the life of some mass of atoms destined to become Christian.

Re:How long until the religious forbid it? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15119233)

Only on /. is flamebait like that modded 'funny'.

Re:How long until the religious forbid it? (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119314)

There are a few religions that actualy forbid surgery, blood tranfusions and so on. So it is probably already forbiden. But i don't know why it would be consider playing god or destroying some future christians. Oh i get it, you have a thing for religions ;)

Re: How long until the religious forbid it? (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119411)

Oooh, creepy. You could reverse the split that gives identical twins and get a freak with two souls!

Reminds me of... (2, Funny)

helioquake (841463) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119181)

So one cell gets split and then they merge back together again and again?

Just like Eminem and Kim?

Re:Reminds me of... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15119262)

What an awesome analogy. I'd like to add to it...

Cancer is gross, ugly and gets lots of money thrown at it... just like Eminem!

Cancer makes people feel sick and to want to throw up, just like Eminem!

Cancer is musically talentless... just like Eminem!

I wonder.. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15119199)

if I could get me han's on a big mafah' one o' deez and redeuche entire nayshons back to der's respective atoms and eves?

The Professor says... (0, Offtopic)

scolen2 (956819) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119200)

"Good news everyone! I just figured out..."

Re:The Professor says... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15119395)

Which episode was that from? I'm rusty on my Futurama.

Reverse (4, Funny)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119206)

"a scientist with the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, has found a way to reverse the process of cell division."

Eeewww!! Grosss!!

Anybody else also reminded of those "see me eat my hamburger in reverse" videos?

Ob: It's irreversible! (2, Funny)

Solra Bizna (716281) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119222)

Like my raincoat!

-:sigma.SB

Two sets of chromosomes? (3, Interesting)

deopmix (965178) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119228)

The article doesn't say if the chromosomes merge back into one or not. I can't imagine that this would be possible, given the complexity of DNA. So does the cell just sit there with two sets of chromosomes. Also, would this be a way to build some kind of super muscle, with twice as many mitochondria?

Re:Two sets of chromosomes? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119240)

Also, would this be a way to build some kind of super muscle, with twice as many mitochondria?

I doubt it. However, it may be the process the mondocheewans used to produce leeloowallawallabingbangwatermelonsauerkrautdallas multipass.

Re:Two sets of chromosomes? (2, Interesting)

wagebo (627707) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119253)

Human cells can't live with 2x (92) the diplood number (46) of chromosomes. Our cells can only handle the one set it's supposed to have. Just having one duplicate chromosome can cause problems like Down's syndrome which is caused by having an extra 21st chromosome. The merged cell in this case would probably end up dying and lysing itself.

Re:Two sets of chromosomes? (1)

lazybratsche (947030) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119421)

The paper itself just refers to the reversal of "mitotic exit", one specific stage of cell division in the cell cycle. They aren't completely reversing cell division, just what amounts to the second to last step. In the video, division continues forward after the intial reversal.

Even if the reversal could be made permanent, the cell would be caught in a transitionary state and probably wouldn't survive for long. There are double the chromosomes, and they are also inactive in this state.

I'm not sure... (1)

initialE (758110) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119247)

that I want to be squeezed back into my mother's womb just yet...

Re:I'm not sure... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15119342)

that I want to be squeezed back into my mother's womb just yet...

I tapped it the other night. Definitely not worth the effort.

Who wants to bet... (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119268)

On how long until this is made into a weapon. Large-scale reverse-division on a complex organism would have some very unpleasant consequences, and on other scales one could probably use the concept to reverse/prevent healing.

Re:Who wants to bet... (1)

gedhrel (241953) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119350)

What's wrong with just _shooting_ someone?

Re:Who wants to bet... (1)

soupforare (542403) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119373)

People aren't romantic anymore?
Politicians. (people can DIE when you send them to BATTLE?! ZOMG!)
More importantly, the bravery of being out of range.

Finally! (3, Funny)

Firehed (942385) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119269)

I can use this cell undevision (fusion?) technique to revert myself to a giant sperm. And I'll be smart enough to choose the best genes before finding myself an equally oversized egg to start over. Who wouldn't want in-home eugenics?

OSU collaborator (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15119308)

William Dycus of Ohio State University also collaborated on this project. Send your comments to dycus.2@osu.edu [mailto] .

nano teck? (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119331)

I wonder if it is possible for the cell to redivide after the reverse happened. This could end up being some control mechanism for nanobots or nano-medicine.

Multiplication == Division?? (1)

LandruBek (792512) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119338)

Why is it that with cells, multiplication and divison are the same thing? It's like some weird algebra. Yet the inverse operation is super-difficult.

Cell Multiplication (1)

wildsurf (535389) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119340)

Wouldn't the reverse of cell division simply be cell multiplication? [pnas.org] That doesn't sound so hard.

Finally.. (1)

Bromskloss (750445) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119352)

..large scale fusion! ;-)

Tuttle! Tuttle, Tuttle? Tuttle. (1)

phiwum (319633) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119361)

Where are the Tuttle jokes? What's happened with Slashdot? The story mentions Oklahoma, people! Let's get on the ball!

You know, maybe they can reverse that city manager's cell division! Ha ha!

No, wait, let me try again.

In Tuttle, Oklahoma, the cells divide you!

Okay. Maybe there's a reason no one's done a Tuttle joke yet. Although "unfunny" doesn't usually count as a reason on Slashdot.

Re:Tuttle! Tuttle, Tuttle? Tuttle. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15119362)

Unfunny. Sort of like your post.

Patent No. US 7,145,485 B1 (1)

Amonimous Coward (778781) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119380)

Method of immortality

Abstract

A method for completely stopping aging, thus achieving immortality. Considering a)the less nuclear cell divisions, the more remaining lifetime, and considering b)a method for controlling divisions is already known, this method of immortality will achieve its goal by setting up the cell in such way that it will be induced to perform a division by zero, resulting in infinite vitality.

d00d! (2, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119412)

The inverse of division is multiplication, so cell division is its own inverse.

*Kryten's head explodes*

Re:d00d! (1)

The Evil Couch (621105) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119457)

It's been awhile since I've seen a Red Planet joke on Slashdot. Wish I had a mod point for ya.

Re:d00d! (1)

The Evil Couch (621105) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119462)

err, Red Dwarf. Whoops. See how long it's been? I'm confusing two completely different sci-fi series.

Press Release Promises Flying Cars (4, Informative)

dondelelcaro (81997) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119423)

The ability to return a cell to metaphase upon the removal of a chemical (Flavopiridol) which causes the mitotic exit of cells which are expressing non-degredatable Cyclin B is interesting, but it definetly tells us nothing about how to reverse this process in non-transformed human cells. The press release is a bit too effusive about the potential of this finding to radically transform the treatment of cancer, etc. as the finding primarily recomfirms the hypothesis that the degredation of cyclin B is what gives directionality to the cell process, and by blocking the degredation of Cyclin B, you can reverse the cell cycle.

And just in case you're confused like the submitter, there's way more than one protein involved in the cell division process in any eukaryotic cell; Cyclins like Cyclin B are very important, but it's a whole host of proteins that are involved in ushering the cell from G1 to S to G2 to M; assuring alignment, proper exit, arrest upon damage, etc. [One could even argue that the whole point of most cells is to divide, and so every bit of the cell is important and/or participates in some way in the process...]

Re:Press Release Promises Flying Cars (2, Insightful)

lazybratsche (947030) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119438)

Very true, but would this paper get any mainstream play if nobody played up the vague cure for cancer angle? "Scientists confirm obscure detail of biological process" doesn't make for much of a headline...

Finally ... (1)

kitzilla (266382) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119441)

... a way to get the Beatles back together. Science!

four cells? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15119448)

did anyone notice that the chromosomes eventually organize themselves into four groups? see the video [nature.com] again.

What a weapon (1)

Nice2Cats (557310) | more than 8 years ago | (#15119452)

Think of the military uses: You drop a reverse-cell bomb over, oh, let's just say Tehran, and their cells reverse, and they all go back to being children! And because they are too short to reach the control panels anymore, the whole problem of them building the bomb vanishes, too! All they need is a good spanking. Oh, and diapers maybe, depending on the dose...

somebody missed the fools' day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15119463)

By a lot...

OMFG GOOGLE CALENDAR!!! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15119492)

OMFG!!!! GOOGLE CALENDAR!!!! why are we talking about CANCER!!!!!!!!

So That's how Bush was made? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15119517)

Started out with a brain and devolved that sucker. Might even explain the ears.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...