Lab disaster may lead to new cancer drug

[WhiteRose]

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor
Sun Feb 4, 9:55 AM ET
 
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - "Her carefully cultured cells were dead and Katherine Schaefer was annoyed, but just a few minutes later, the researcher realized she had stumbled onto a potential new cancer treatment.

Schaefer and colleagues at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York believe they have discovered a new way to attack tumors that have learned how to evade existing drugs.

Tests in mice suggest the compound helps break down the cell walls of tumors, almost like destroying a tumor cell's "skeleton."

The researchers will test the new compound for safety and hope they can develop it to treat cancers such as colon cancer, esophageal cancer, liver and skin cancers.

"I was using these cancer cells as models of the normal intestine," Schaefer said in a telephone interview.

Normal human cells are difficult to grow and study in the lab, because they tend to die. But cancer cells live much longer and are harder to kill, so scientists often use them.

Schaefer was looking for drugs to treat the inflammation seen in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, both of which cause pain and diarrhea.

She was testing a compound called a PPAR-gamma modulator. It would never normally have been thought of as a cancer drug, or in fact a drug of any kind.

"I made a calculation error and used a lot more than I should have. And my cells died," Schaefer said.

A colleague overheard her complaining. "The co-author on my paper said,' Did I hear you say you killed some cancer?' I said 'Oh', and took a closer look."

They ran several tests and found the compound killed "pretty much every epithelial tumor cell lines we have seen," Schaefer said. Epithelial cells line organs such as the colon, and also make up skin.

It also killed colon tumors in mice without making the mice sick, they reported in the journal International Cancer Research.

The compound works in much the same way as the taxane drugs, including Taxol, which were originally derived from Pacific yew trees.

"It targets part of the cell cytoskeleton called tubulin," Schaefer said. Tubulin is used to build microtubules, which in turn make up the cell's structure.

Destroying it kills the cell, but cancer cells eventually evolve mechanisms to pump out the drugs that do this, a problem called resistance.

"Resistance to anti-tubulin therapies is a huge problem in many cancers. We see this as another way to get to the tubulin," Schaefer said.

The PPAR-gamma compound does this in a different way from the taxanes, which might mean it could overcome the resistance that tumor cells often develop to chemotherapy.

"Most of the drugs like Taxol affect the ability of tubulin to forms into microtubules. This doesn't do that -- it causes the tubulin itself to disappear. We do not know why."

Schaefer's team plans more safety tests in mice. As the compound is already patented, her team will probably have to design something slightly different to be able to patent it as a new drug.

Taxol, developed by U.S. National Cancer Institute researchers and manufactured by Bristol-Myers Squibb in 1993, had annual sales of $1.6 billion at its peak in 2000."

[D]

Thats awesome. Lets just hope Cures are allowed to be found.

The drug companies will lose a SHIT LOAD of dollars if cures are found.

[Mama Kin]

Yay!!! More people will live long enough to pass on poor genes!!! Yay!!! Cancer will mutate and only get stronger, Yay!!!!!!!

Before you say it, yes, I do know people with cancer....

[Walk]

There are a few genetic train wrecks out there with a high chance of cancer, but it's mostly a result of bad luck. Your DNA is punished every day, and you have a chance of getting cancer all the time. Some people are able to push their luck, and some get cancer before they're born. Genetic strength has little to do with it, since it's a disease that starts in the DNA itself, so adaptations towards resistance are tough. Besides, dying before you become a burden to society is a good thing, from an evolution point of view.

If you want to talk eugenics, think of stuff like Huntington's disease or hemophilia, not cancer.

As for conspiracy theories, drug companies would make more money selling very expensive cures, not treatments. With treatments, you have competition with similar drugs, but if you are the have THE cure, you make loads of money until the patent expires or a competitor somehow makes a rival drug in time. Drugs that are truly breakthroughs are very profitable.

[mrlee]

why not ban cigarettes, that will help decrease cancer, and stop using fossil fuels for cars, that will help prevent it too, no one does it, nor will they give us the cure because they wont make money.

[anythinggoes]

Besides, dying before you become a burden to society is a good thing, from an evolution point of view.

When you have Family that have had cancer and died from it you will realise that evolution goes out the window.

[Prometheus]

IMO if you ahve a cure..... the problem disappears andthen there is no problem to cure, in speaking as though a cure is on going supply to make much money is false. a treatment is on going and not a cure which a DC can charge a moderate to expensive rate for making billions ove rthe life of the drug. a cure erases the diease meaning one stop and its gone.


my only question is this, if you cure cancer what is going to crop up in its place thats even worse?


as walk said about DNA and problems being there that allow for these things to cause such problems. I truely beleive that what is happening is a weaking of the genitic material of the population as a whole. If many many more interacial breeding was to occur, then in time maybe over a thousand the genetic material would be strong enough to fight off or to eliminate some of these dieases.

[mrlee]

IMO if you ahve a cure..... the problem disappears andthen there is no problem to cure, in speaking as though a cure is on going supply to make much money is false. a treatment is on going and not a cure which a DC can charge a moderate to expensive rate for making billions ove rthe life of the drug. a cure erases the diease meaning one stop and its gone.


my only question is this, if you cure cancer what is going to crop up in its place thats even worse?


as walk said about DNA and problems being there that allow for these things to cause such problems. I truely beleive that what is happening is a weaking of the genitic material of the population as a whole. If many many more interacial breeding was to occur, then in time maybe over a thousand the genetic material would be strong enough to fight off or to eliminate some of these dieases.

interracial? is that when the races are different or the same?

[the dirt]

interracial? is that when the races are different or the same?

All mixed and jumbled up, son.

[mrlee]

interracial? is that when the races are different or the same?

All mixed and jumbled up, son.

surely there must be an alternative?

i just think that type of breedings wrong, look at all the skin problems they get too, where will culture go too if everyones these random mixed up beings?

[Walk]

Give me a break. We've found caveman skeletons over 10,000 years old with signs of arthritis. Face it: there are simply some diseases that evolution can't find a perfect solution towards, if any solution at all. Cancer is one of them. No amount of race mixing, eugenics, or other schemes can stop this. If there were a way to beat it naturally, it would have happened a long time ago. Only modern science can find a cure for cancer.

A cure might wipe out polio, AIDS, or the black plague, but cancer comes spontaneously, so a cure would always be in demand.