This is incredible!

[Cali Coug]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4006951.shtml

I don't know if it will pan out, but you have to really admire the guy. I do wonder if cancer research is hampered a bit by an absence of "outside the box" thinking. This guy knows nothing about cancer or medicine, but knows a lot about radios and had a great idea. I hope it works.

Fascinating story.

[The Borg]

Makes perfect sense....go man go!

[SoonerCoug]

IMO, the thought of "no side effects" here is genuine science fiction.

It depends on how specifically you can target the nanoparticles to cancer cells.

With very rare exception, cancer cells express the same proteins on the cell surface that normal cells express. Because of this, it's very difficult to target something specifically to a cancer cell. Add to that the complexity of the fact cancers come in so many different forms, and you have an insurmountable problem.

It wouldn't be a surprise if the side effects from this radio-cooking therapy aren't much better than most other chemotherapies. Local injections to tumors might be the best bet, as long as nanoparticles don't leak into the blood and literally make someone's blood boil.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

IMO, the thought of "no side effects" here is genuine science fiction.

It depends on how specifically you can target the nanoparticles to cancer cells.

With very rare exception, cancer cells express the same proteins on the cell surface that normal cells express. Because of this, it's very difficult to target something specifically to a cancer cell. Add to that the complexity of the fact cancers come in so many different forms, and you have an insurmountable problem.

It wouldn't be a surprise if the side effects from this radio-cooking therapy aren't much better than most other chemotherapies. Local injections to tumors might be the best bet, as long as nanoparticles don't leak into the blood and literally make someone's blood boil.

The article did make it sound like it was possible, even already existing, to have a cell that targets only cancerous cells and binds to them. What do you think of the information in the article below:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0622115203.htm

Interesting that the science article indicates the nanoparticles begin with a metal (gold) for creation and the guy in the 60 Minutes article needed just that.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

The article did make it sound like it was possible, even already existing, to have a cell that targets only cancerous cells and binds to them. What do you think of the information in the article below:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0622115203.htm

Interesting that the science article indicates the nanoparticles begin with a metal (gold) for creation and the guy in the 60 Minutes article needed just that.

Interesting

“Beyond imaging, it may also be possible to specifically target and destroy cancer cells that internalize the nanoparticles by applying laser heat that intensifies in the presence of gold nanoparticles”, said Wang. “Another possibility is the attachment of drug molecules to these dendrimer nanoparticle systems”, added Baker, “since this will allow the direct delivery of drugs to the target cells”. The researchers are currently conducting further in vivo experiments to evaluate the suitability of this system for clinical applications.

[SoonerCoug]

They were talking about targeting the nanoparticles with antibodies. Antibodies recognize proteins, and sometimes modifications of proteins. Proteins are expressed on all cells. For a protein to be expressed on a tumor cell, but not ANY normal cells, would be extraordinarily rare.

That's why they said this is still science fiction.

The closest thing to an antibody that speciifcally targets a variety of tumor cells is an antibody to something called the Tn-antigen, which is an unmodified sugar that doesn't exist on normal cells. However, the Tn-antigen only exists on a subset of tumors, and the antibodies to Tn are not very good... in other words, the antibodies would also bind "nonspecifically" to other cells.

It is EXTREMELY rare to find an antibody that somehow recognizes a specific tumor cell, but no normal cells.

You can doubt my knowledge of the issue, Indy. You want to go in depth? I'm telling you that specific targeting using antibodies is next to impossible for most cancers.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

They were talking about targeting the nanoparticles with antibodies. Antibodies recognize proteins, and sometimes modifications of proteins. Proteins are expressed on all cells. For a protein to be expressed on a tumor cell, but not ANY normal cells, would be extraordinarily rare.

That's why they said this is still science fiction.

The closest thing to an antibody that speciifcally targets tumor cells is an antibody to something called the Tn-antigen, which is an unmodified sugar that doesn't exist on normal cells. However, the Tn-antigen only exists on a subset of tumors, and the antibodies to Tn are not very good... in other words, the antibodies would also bind "nonspecifically" to other cells.

It is EXTREMELY rare to find an antibody that recognizes a specific tumor cell, but no normal cells.

You can doubt my knowledge of the issue, Indy. You want to go in depth? I'm telling you that specific targeting using antibodies is next to impossible for most cancers.

I'm not trying to argue. I browsed it quickly, but they talked about cancerous cells having higher levels of folic acid as if there might potentially be some way to exploit that trait.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I'm not trying to argue. I browsed it quickly, but they talked about cancerous cells having higher levels of folic acid as if there might potentially be some way to exploit that trait.

Yeah, they could exploit traits of tumor cells. Unfortunately, tumor cells still behave like normal cells (and look like normal cells) in so many ways that they will undoubtedly target normal cells too. Yes, the radio thing might be better than normal chemo. But the media love to twist and overstate things, and at this point the media (and the people involved in the project) are overstating things.

Remember gene therapy? Turned out to be 99% hype. Stem cells? Mostly hype (but still worth studying because you never know). In my opinion, this also sounds like hype. Still way too early to say much of anything.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

Yeah, they could exploit traits of tumor cells. Unfortunately, tumor cells still behave like normal cells (and look like normal cells) in so many ways that they will undoubtedly target normal cells too. Yes, the radio thing might be better than normal chemo. But the media love to twist and overstate things, and at this point the media (and the people involved in the project) are overstating things.

Remember gene therapy? Turned out to be 99% hype. Stem cells? Mostly hype (but still worth studying because you never know). In my opinion, this also sounds like hype. Still way too early to say much of anything.

You're just the man keeping us down. You probably belong to the same group that squelches those 200 mpg carburetors, too.

[Spaz]

Obviously, the ability to focus on localized tumors presents some advantages. If they can find a way to provide a vector that ONLY attacks the cancer cells, it could be extremely effective.

I don't think the article said anything other than that.