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!

Using Enzymes To Counter Cancer Growth

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the using-all-the-toys-in-the-toy-box dept.


sylvester22 writes to mention a Mercury News article about a possible breakthrough in cancer research from a research group in Oakland. Dr. Julie Saba and her team at the Children's Hospital Oakland Research Institute are working with 'lyase,' an intestinal enzyme that apparently can inhibit cancer growth. The problem is that this enzyme is almost never found after a growth has become active. From the article: "Using cells in a tissue culture Saba said she and her team 'have been able to turn-on the enzyme after cancer cell growth had occurred.' The researchers found that re-introducing the enzyme made chemotherapy more effective in tissue cultures. 'Although we're beginning our studies in colon cancer, we believe our research findings will have a direct impact on investigations for other cancers, including pediatric cancers,' said Saba."

cancel ×


Queen (1)

spellraiser (764337) | more than 7 years ago | (#16972782)

From TFA:

Though many people fear cancer, Saba, `Queen of the Lyase,` may yet protect us all; `Don't worry, don't get overwhelmed,` she said, `there are lots of us working on it, and sooner or later we will have it figured out.`

Queen of the Lyase?? How cool is that? Seems to me like Dr. Saba should have been on this list [] .

Re:Queen (1)

kypper (446750) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973058)

I've been trying to get my lab to call me "Sybr" (pronounced Cyber) because all I do is real-time PCR with Roche's FastStart DNA MasterPLUS SYBR Green.

We scientists are geekier than anyone had imagined.

Re:Queen (1)

EinZweiDrei (955497) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973400)

I consider it an outrage that I've been quietly multiclassing my very own 'Saba, Queen of the Lyase' into a Half-elven Level 10/6 Fighter/Arcane Archer for years without a whit of recognition. And now this!

Re:Queen (1)

EinZweiDrei (955497) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973454)

And yet, come to think of it, that's probably because I failed to take the requisite levels of an arcane spellcasting class before attempting the Arcane Archer prestige class. Whoops!

Congratulations! (5, Insightful)

pimpimpim (811140) | more than 7 years ago | (#16972818)

You have just published the millionst breaktrough against cancer/HIV/terrorism-related-danger! Click on the link below and win lots of prizes!

Sorry, people, I'm all in favor of scientific advances, and I know that this is the way to get funding, but who still takes these titles seriously? Cancer would've been cured 40 years ago if we would've believed the newspaper messages that promised us these breakthroughs. Point is, it doesn't work this way, everyone knows it, so stop pretending! Also, just think about all the people that have cancer or people close to them that have cancer. Why give them false hope every time?

Re:Congratulations! (3, Insightful)

arivanov (12034) | more than 7 years ago | (#16972916)

You got half the way to the right point without making it. I hope you do not mind if I do it for you.

It is quite appalling that a news site which is oriented towards geeks publishes links to newspaper pseudonews bollocks without publishing links to the original articles and original peer reviewed research. Frankly, that is not news for nerds. It is news for Sun readers (and the like).

Is it that damn difficult to do some digging before publishing on Slashdot?

Re:Congratulations! (2, Funny)

Dhalka226 (559740) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973032)

Is it that damn difficult to do some digging before publishing on Slashdot?

Am I the only one who snickered at this?

Digg it!

Re:Congratulations! (1)

kypper (446750) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973066)

Digg it!

Am I the only one who snickered at this?

Re:Congratulations! (1)

bwcarty (660606) | more than 7 years ago | (#16975024)

Is it that damn difficult to do some digging before publishing on Slashdot?

Survey says....yes! Given the choice between having things right or having them right now, more people seem to be choosing the latter.

Oh, and if we're going to be digging before publishing on Slashdot, does that mean we can Slashdot before articles get cross posted to Digg?

Re:Congratulations! (1)

pimpimpim (811140) | more than 7 years ago | (#16977086)

Thank you for finishing my point :) I have to admit I didn't actually read the article to check for peer reviewed research, etc. But that's just because I'm just as pissed of with these 'scientific breakthroughs' as the average slashdot reader is with 'the next iPod killer'. And those iPod killers will actually be produced and sold, whereas these new anti-cancer methods might be deemed impractical before ever tried out in-vivo.

as well as (1)

popisdead (594564) | more than 7 years ago | (#16978876)

This news fails to be breakthrough as it's been around the science community for a while. Why does /. even bother with this sub-heading?

Re:Congratulations! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16974272)

Cancer would've been cured 40 years ago if we would've believed the newspaper messages that promised us these breakthroughs.

And over the past 40 years, we've been curing a lot of people with a lot of different types of cancer, with varying success rates.

The problem is that people and the media don't understand that there's more than just "cancer", there's hundreds of different types of cancer with different causes and properties, and thus different ways to fix each one of them.

Re:Congratulations! (1)

pimpimpim (811140) | more than 7 years ago | (#16977564)

Well, there are also better treatmens nowadays, the laser-based treatments [] for example. So there is a lot of progress! But the value of these new methods can be really appreciated only when tested in realistic settings, in animals or humans (sometimes even that last step can be decisive, see for example the recent tragic human trial of antibodies [] . Therefore I propose to market new methods as new methods, and new breakthroughs for those cases that really have proven to be a breakthrough.

Jeez. Pediatric colon cancer... (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 7 years ago | (#16972880)

That's really terrible. Kids shouldn't have to go through that kind of shit.

NO ONE should have to go through it (1)

James A. V. Joyce (798462) | more than 7 years ago | (#16975566)


OMG (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16972902)

I got f1rst p0st!

yay... (1)

tontammer (988352) | more than 7 years ago | (#16972904)

not for the breakthrough.. for the fourth reply of course.. something better than nothing

Lyase is a Huge Class of Enzymes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16972906)

Lyase is a huge class of enzymes that's already known to fix or prevent DNA mutations (e.g. photolyase). The news is on sphingosine phosphate lyase (SPL). Inaccurate summary.

Breakthrough? (3, Interesting)

jenik (1030872) | more than 7 years ago | (#16972966)

Unfortunately, there are many, many enzymes and proteins that are downregulated or mutated in cancer cells and most of them have been known for ages (p53 [] , rb... tumor suppresors). The problem is that turning a gene on is not that easy in vivo. If everything that worked in cell culture worked in human patients there wouldn't be any more uncurable diseases.

Re:Breakthrough? (1)

kypper (446750) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973088)

p53 is upregulated in so many different ways, too, and nobody's sure what the predominant pathway is. Nature has been churning out these like clockwork for the past few years.

A human is not a petri dish (3, Informative)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973102)

It's nice that this works fine in the lab, but the problem is that cancer is not some disease, where you suffer from externally applied poisons (like the waste products of bacteria or fungi that infected you). And while it shares some similarities with a viral infection (your cells going bonkers), you can't attack the virus for there is none. You are actually attacking the body's own cells.

Unfortunately, pretty much everything that affects cancer cells also affect the rest of the body. Simply because they ARE in fact body cells. Body cells gone banana, but still cells of the body.

So it's nice that we found (yet again, I have to add) something that affects cancer cells, the key question with all cancer research is, though, how does it affect the body surrounding them?

Re:A human is not a petri dish (1)

It'sYerMam (762418) | more than 7 years ago | (#16974226)

This is true, but the point of this is that the particular lyase being investigated is present normally, but inhibited by cancers. Hopefully, then, it won't have a large adverse effect if added to the body, or at least be better than current methods.
It should of course be noted evolutionary principles apply just as equally to cancers as to the host; a mutation that favours its own proliferation will naturally be proliferated - so in the case of a cancer, a mutation such as this inhibitor will be beneficial to the tumour.

Not again (1)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973216)

Man, I get so sick when i read about the cure against the cancer. People don't understand that blood cancer, for example is not the same than lever cancer even if both are cancers? The cause are different, the evolution is different, the metastasis is different and the way it propagates is unrelated. There is not a cure for Cancer. There may be a cure for some kind of cancer in specific, but never in general. It's like saying that founding a cure againdt typhus will help you against salmonella infection just because both are provoced by bacteries.

sources? (1)

Electric-PI (1021677) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973528)

Here are some sources from 2 Journals one by Dr. Saba and others 384 [] and this one that seems to support the view on Lyase increasing sensitivity to Cisplatin chemotherapy for Lung Cancer /5/287 []

Related to stem cells causing cancer, too (1)

transporter_ii (986545) | more than 7 years ago | (#16973774)

...[A]s the body is damaged by everyday wear, aging, improper diet, contact with substances known to damage the body, such as tobacco or toxic chemicals, etc., the body begins to heal itself with cells, to some extent, made up of [stem] cells. Under normal conditions, when the healing is complete, the immune system "turns off" the [stem] cells and stops what would otherwise be an overgrowth of these cells -- a condition we would label cancer -- by the use of pancreatic enzymes.

One of these days, the stem cell theory and the enzyme theory are going to run into each other.

Yes, it is an oversimplification, but the tissue -- which does contains stem cells -- that starts out as cancer is trying to do its normal bodily repair functions, and after it has done its job, the body turns this repair job off with enzymes. But if the body is stressed out, not working right, or impaired for some reason, and one of the two functions - the repairing process or the stopping it part -- malfunction, you get cancer.

Because what is going on is supposed to be going on, just way out of whack, the body's immune system doesn't see cancer as a threat and can't stop it. However, what will stop it is exactly what is supposed to stop it, enzymes.

I have studied this for many years and I'm convinced that the people attacking cancer from the stem cell side or the enzyme side (or both) are the ones that are going to "cure" cancer. In fact, there are some people that have already had extremely good results with enzymes, but it is a true battle to make even small changes in main-stream cancer treatments.


Lancet nails the cause of cancer in the US (1)

transporter_ii (986545) | more than 7 years ago | (#16974020)

[And for those that study enzymems, they will find that a poor diet causes the body's enzymes to get real stressed out. Digestion is hard on the body, which is why calorie restriction improves lifespan. But when a steady diet of junk food is eaten, the body works so hard trying to digest it, important enzymes that help repair the body decrease. The pieces of the puzzle are all there, it is just a matter of getting the big picture. -- Transporter_ii]

From the Lancet:

"In many [western] countries, peoples' diet changed substantially in the second half of the twentieth century, generally with increases in consumption of meat, dairy products, vegetable oils, fruit juice, and alcoholic beverages, and decreases in consumption of starchy staple foods such as bread, potatoes, rice, and maize flour. Other aspects of lifestyle also changed, notably, large reductions in physical activity and large increases in the prevalence of obesity."[18]

"It was noted in the 1970s that people in many western countries had diets high in animal products, fat, and sugar, and high rates of cancers of the colorectum, breast, prostate, endometrium, and lung; by contrast, individuals in developing countries usually had diets that were based on one or two starchy staple foods, with low intakes of animal products, fat, and sugar, and low rates of these cancers."[18]

"These observations suggest that the diets [or lifestyle] of different populations might partly determine their rates of cancer, and the basis for this hypothesis was strengthened by results of studies showing that people who migrate from one country to another generally acquire the cancer rates of the new host country, suggesting that environmental [or lifestyle factors] rather than genetic factors are the key determinants of the international variation in cancer rates."[18]

See also:

Scientists estimate that most cancers are associated with factors related to how we live, called lifestyle factors [note: these things effect enzymes -- Transporter_ii]. Evidence reviewed by the American Cancer Society suggests that about one-third of the 550,000 cancer deaths that occur in the United States each year is due to dietary factors (for example, excess calories, high fat, and low fibre). Another third is due to cigarette smoking. Other lifestyle factors which increase the risk for cancer include drinking heavily, lack of regular physical exercise, promiscuous sexual behavior,

Re:Related to stem cells causing cancer, too (1)

jenik (1030872) | more than 7 years ago | (#16974132)

Not sure where the quote comes from but IAABAD(biochemist and doctor) and I have never heard of the immune system using pancreatic enzymes to turn off stem cells' growth. Also, overgrowth of normal cells is not cancer, it is for example a wart or freckle. The word "enzyme" in your post is used somewhat non-specifically - indeed, it is easy to kill cells by blocking their enzymes but how do you distinguish between normal and cancer cells? This is also the reason why the immune system is relatively inefficient with fighting cancer cells - they generally look way too much like normal cells (and some of them even express molecules that kill immune cells - FasL on some malignant melanomas or other tumors [] ) The reason you get cancer is (VERY generally speaking) not because your body is stressed but because DNA replication and repair is not perfect. It leads to mutations which, in a VERY VERY unlikely event, create immortal and invasive cell lines we clinically call cancer.

Re:Related to stem cells causing cancer, too (1)

transporter_ii (986545) | more than 7 years ago | (#16976632)

The reason you get cancer is (VERY generally speaking) not because your body is stressed but because DNA replication and repair is not perfect. It leads to mutations which, in a VERY VERY unlikely event, create immortal and invasive cell lines we clinically call cancer.

Well, you being a biochemist and doctor, I highly doubt that anything I say is going to sway your opinion...but, no offense, instead of seeing cancer as having a single cause (e.g. DNA replication and repair leads to mutations), I see it as a multi-faceted problem, with the biggest factors being stem cells, enzymes, diet/nutrition, and lifestyle and exercise. The biggest problem with mainstream medicine, in my opinion, is that everything is treated in isolation.

  • In 1902, John Beard, a professor of embryology at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland, authored a paper published in the British medical journal Lancet in which he stated there were no differences between cancer cells and certain pre-embryonic cells that were normal to the early stages of pregnancy

In 2000+, we are just starting to see that cancer cells contain pre-embryonic stem cells that form the very material that John Beard saw in 1902. See: ml []

  • The same John Beard also noted that the body had a way of regulating this material, to keep it from getting out of hand. In the same 1902 Lancet article, he pointed out that one of the ways the body keeps these cells in check is by the use of enzymes.

Note: See the 1993 study, almost 100 years later, by Nicholas Gonzalez, where he used pancreatic enzymes to get these results on patients with pancreatic cancer (And btw, Gonzalez based his treatment on research done at the turn of the last century!):

Five of 11 patients in the initial series, which was sponsored by the Nestle Corporation, survived for 2 years or more and the results were published this past spring in the journal, Nutrition and Cancer [33(2):117-124 (Note:The 5-year survival rate for all patients with pancreatic cancer is only 4 percent.)
  • If folic acid is in short supply, Ames found, thymine levels drop and a large amount of uracil instead of thymine is incorporated into human DNA. This leads to chromosome breaks when DNA is being repaired and subsequent mutations. The findings in the Fertility and Sterility report support this model, the authors claim. (reference: 2/26_diet.html [] )

Go to google and type in "poor diet causes dna mutations" and then read my post from the Lancet again. The above reference is just one of many, many examples of poor diet causing DNA mutations, and there are several other vitamins, not just folic acid that play a role in cancer prevention. The bottom line is, they don't have cancer rates in third-world countries like we do in the United States. It isn't environmental, just read the Lancet article already cited and it isn't genes...but it is dietary/vitamin related.

I could cite research article after research article, but I'm not going to sit here all day ( Although, I could post more if it will actually be read).

The bottom line, for me, is this: I can count on a couple of fingers the number of people I have known that had cancer and went the traditional chemo/radiation/surgery treatments and lived more than a year afterwards. But I have personally known, and known through friends and co-workers, more people who put some of the above research into action and skipped the chemo/radiation/surgery and went on to live normal, healthy lives.

Again, cancer is a multi-faceted problem. Most Americans don't want to change their diets and/or lifestyle, they want to take a pill and be cured. I don't think we will ever have a 100% cure for cancer, but I do think someone is going to attack cancer from several different ways at one time to stop it enough that people will not die from it. And again, the three or four main ways of attack are listed right only needs someone that will put all the pieces of the puzzle together and look at the big picture. They won't listen to me, but I would bet good money that as time goes by, people are going to look back and see there were a lot of people like me, saying the same things I'm saying...and they we will see that it was being said for a long time.


Re:Related to stem cells causing cancer, too (1)

transporter_ii (986545) | more than 7 years ago | (#16976912)

indeed, it is easy to kill cells by blocking their enzymes but how do you distinguish between normal and cancer cells?

The point I was trying to make wasn't that cancer is killed by blocking enzymes, it is that there are a lack of key enzymes that let the cancer grow in the first place, and these enzymes are the body's normal defense against cancer to begin with, so they already know how to distinguish between normal cells and cancer cells.

Cancer happens a lot where the body is constantly being damaged and repaired (e.g. a smoker's lungs). Yes, there is a chicken and egg type of thing here, but I say that smoking doesn't "cause" cancer, it damages the body and the body's attempt to repair itself, over time, gets out of control...for multiple reasons -- including mutated stem cells/DNA in the area of damage, as you pointed out. But I say, and this is probably where we would disagree, the body has backup mechanisms in place to deal with this overgrowth of cells gone haywire, with the key backup mechanisms being: enzymes, vitamins (proper nutrition) and/or lifestyle choices. There is much, very real, scientific research related to exactly this, and I have already posted some in another reply to you. Obviously, I'm not going to write something in one paragraph that makes you change your whole worldview. But there are documented cases of doctors/scientists that exploited the body's own backup mechanisms to deal with cancer and achieved survival rates far beyond those obtained by conventional treatments.

Unfortunately, trying to get doctors to use these treatments is like trying to convince the RIAA that they don't need DRM. And some of that is understandable. The American people don't want to change their diet or exercise. They want to take a pill and be cured, and we have a whole, multi-billion dollar industry devoted to coming up with that pill, so the two feed off of each other.


Re:Related to stem cells causing cancer, too (1)

avicarmi (582269) | more than 7 years ago | (#16990056)

Two months ago, my 8 years old daughter was diagnosed with leukemia (High-Risk T-Cell ALL).

she is a vegetarian by choice from when she started eating solid foods. she loves animals, and would not even hurt a spider if she finds one in the house she would pick it up and put it outside.

we (and she) only eat organic fruits/vegetables/dairy, and she was nursed till she was 3 1/2 years old.

she never ate any "junk food", sugars, cookies/cakes, ice cream, soda, juices, chocolate, fried foods, etc. at birthday parties she would always decline the sweets, and instead eat figs or dates she would bring from home. (now we have to give her all these poisonous chemo drugs...)

my wife prepares all the food at home, we rarely eat outside, or buy prepared food. all the food we eat is vegetarian, organic whole grain, low fat, low sugar, low sodium, etc. see her mom's web site: []

she was very physically fit (now she can barely stand without holding on to something...). looking back at the first symptoms, she had the leukemia when we were on our family vacation at the end of August. she hiked over 6 miles, biked 15 miles, etc. every day of the vacation.

her immune system was the best of the family, she would rarely get sick, and if she did, she would get over it in a day or two.

she is in the Gifted and Talented Education (GATE) program at school, and wants to go to Stanford and work for NASA and save the world (environment/animals/global warming/etc), and the long term side effects of the chemo and cranial radiation are very scary.

still, she got the leukemia. go figure.

Re: Related to stem cells causing cancer, too (1)

transporter_ii (986545) | more than 7 years ago | (#16991556)

I'm really sorry to hear about your daughter. I have no explanation for it...but at one point I studied alternative cancer treatments fairly heavily for many years. My job has changed so much that a lot of the free time I used to have has vanished, though, so I don't get to follow it as closely as I used to.

Many years of research led me to believe that diet and lifestyle play a large role in cancer. But the whole issue is really tricky. Personally, I became a vegan, lost a ton of weight, and felt better than I have felt in many years, but the more research I did, I kept running into people who were vegans for many years and just fell all to pieces. Their teeth and hair fell out, or they developed things like MS...or worse. (Now some people did do good, long-term, but the ones that did, seemed like they had a ton of money and made up the difference with expensive foods and supplements that the normal person just can't do, and unfortunately, these are the people that write the books telling everyone how fantastic their diets are).

In fact, the more research I did, I came to the conclusion that cutting out meat entirely was a little risky, so I added back game meat and organic meats to my diet (And eventually, I got so broke, I just went back to the SAD diet because I couldn't afford quality food anymore. Right now, I'm working on getting back to eating healthy again).

My personal stand on diet is, I 100% believe that a vegan diet is fantastic for a short-term cleansing, especially for cancer. I'm less confident of vegan and even vegetarian diets for the long haul, even though the research shows that vegetarians can be healthier than those on the SAD diet. In fact, if you read any of my writings, I recommend a reduced-meat diet, and that the meats be of high quality. A couple of books that I recommend are the "Paleo Diet" and "Neanderthin," ... but read them from a very reduced meat point of view, not the authors "gorge yourself on meat" point of view.

But the deal is, even organic produce is lacking in vitamins and minerals, compared to produce from just thirty or forty years ago, and some very important cancer-fighting vitamins have all but vanished from the American diet. I think it is nothing short of a miracle that we do as well as we do. And I hate to sound doom and gloom, but I don't see things getting any better.

There are also other factors involved, too. If you look at studies of people deep in some forest in China, they have a cancer rate that is a fraction of what we have here in the US...but even they are not cancer free.

What really burns me up, though, is that for those that do get cancer here in America, the "Land of the Free," you have to leave the country to get non-toxic treatments.

I've read about this so much that I truly know what you are going through, and my heart goes out to you.

My web sites, though I don't get to work on them much anymore, are and

Now I have thrown out vitamin B17, and the quack flags will be flying, but I believe that the body has its own way to fight cancer, which is enzymes, but failing that, there was a dietary backup plan in the form of a vitamin...a vitamin which has all but vanished from the American diet.

There is a good book about it here:


I had a close friend, a fine upstanding person, who not only knew the doctor, a real MD, that wrote the above book, but also knew one of the patients mentioned in the book. It was this friend who got me into my studies to begin with.



Re: Related to stem cells causing cancer, too (1)

avicarmi (582269) | more than 7 years ago | (#17028060)


Thanks for the info, I will look into the links you provided, however, my wife, who until now never trusted doctors, and was mostly using homeopathy and acupuncture, now will not do anything without the blessing of my daughter's doctor. she will not even give zinc, or anti-oxidant supplements (which I researched and found out that they should help with chemo and/or side effects). she is so freaked out right now.

My daughter was just admitted again, she is so weak that they could not continue with the chemo, she is unable to hold anything, and does not eat or drink as much as she should. doctors have no idea why she has so many headaches/dizziness/nausea as she was off the chemo for over a week now.

We are just taking it one day at a time.


re: bovine leukemia virus (1)

transporter_ii (986545) | more than 7 years ago | (#16997194)

> Still, she got the leukemia. go figure.

One thing I didn't think about until later on today is the bovine leukemia virus, since you specifically mentioned dairy:

The scariest virus is probably bovine leukemia virus (BLV). It was shown years ago that chimpanzees fed milk from leukemic cows from birth died of leukemia in the first year of life. Between 10-70% of the cows in the US are infected with BLV and approximately 60% of the herds surveyed similarly infected. BLV has been linked to acute lymphoid leukemia (ALL). ALL is a form of acute childhood leukemia.

The California Breast Cancer Research Program (CBCRP) has done actual tests on this and found evidence of BLV DNA in blood cells from 9 of 22 humans tested, and 50% of 100 tested had antibodies for the BLV virus. []

This research has addressed the first aspect of the overall proposal, whether humans can become infected with BLV. Human breast tissues removed during surgery, breast tissue sections received from a pathologist, and cells from milk and blood were searched for evidence of different components of BLV using cellular and molecular techniques (immunocytochemistry, PCR, and in situ hybridization). Human blood was tested for antibodies to BLV. We detected evidence of BLV DNA in blood cells from 9 of 22 human volunteers and in surgically removed breast tissues from 10 of 23 patients. We found evidence of BLV proteins in breast tissues from 8 of 26 patients. Antibodies to BLV were found in the serum of over half of the 100 human volunteers tested.


Re: bovine leukemia virus (1)

avicarmi (582269) | more than 7 years ago | (#17028084)

Thanks, will look into BLV, however, even if this is how she got the leukemia, anything that can be done about BLV now?


Damn (1)

dsanfte (443781) | more than 7 years ago | (#16974074)

And here I am still in my undergrad. I want to get into research, dammit! I mean, just yesterday, that discovery about human genetics rendered my Mendelian genetics class obsolete. At this rate by the time I have my honours degree we'll be bioengineering whole organs and knocking down genetic diseases like flies.

Re:Damn (1)

shipbrick (929823) | more than 7 years ago | (#16975580)

flies aren't a genetic disease

moD up (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16974356)

Perhaps for skin cancer some day? (1)

fuego451 (958976) | more than 7 years ago | (#16977938)

Recovering from yet another surgery for skin cancer, I was thinking a while back how nice it would be to have some sort of salve that, when applied to skin cancer, would stop the growth and allow the skin to heal itself. This would certainly beat the hell out of having chunks of tissue removed every few years. I'm starting to look like 'The Monster' but my grand kids still love me.

Perhaps this enzyme research, combined with others, will eventually lead to good things for all who suffer from cancers but I'm sure I am too old to benefit.

Good news for a Cancer victim (2, Insightful)

SilverBlade2k (1005695) | more than 7 years ago | (#16981726)

As a cancer victim myself (non-hodgekins lymphoma) I welcome any news that promises a potential cure for any type of cancer. The cure for one type of cancer can be modified for other types as well. I'm currently undergoing chemotherapy, and then a Bone Marrow Transplant, and I have to say, it SUCKS SHIT to have to go through it. If this had been discovered 5 yrs ago, I probably wouldn't have had a need for harmful chemotherapy drugs.

link to the paper (1)

SoyChemist (1015349) | more than 7 years ago | (#16985140)

If slashdot was a technical crowd that likes highly detailed information, I would recommend that whenever a post is related to a publication in a peer reviewed scientific journal, there should be a link to it and the title should be stated. In this case, the Queen of Lyase recently published a paper [] called Sphingosine-1-phosphate lyase potentiates apoptosis via p53- and p38-dependent pathways and is down-regulated in colon cancer in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, or PNAS for short. It deals with cancer epigenetics, which will be one of the most important emerging areas of oncological research. Scientists once thought that cancer was caused by a critical mass of mutations, but now many of them realize that errant epigentic marks such as histone acetylation and cytosine methylation can be equal contributors to cancer. Epigentic marks do this by turning off tumor suppressor genes or activating oncogenes. Several histone deacetylase [] inhibitors are currently in human clinical trials. Having some nice primary source material is great for us technical folks.

Re:link to the paper (1)

oknell (996016) | more than 7 years ago | (#17000100)

are these comments moderated?
Check for New 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