Stanford researchers develop molecule that forces cancer cells to kill themselves

[Alfonso Maruccia]

In context: Every day, billions of cells in the human body die thanks to a natural process known as apoptosis. When apoptosis doesn't work by design, cells get cancerous and can cause a life-threatening illness. Now, researchers at Stanford University are working on a novel way to treat, and possibly kill for good, a specific type of cancer.

The researchers' recently published study describes a way to re-activate apoptosis in mutated cells, which would amount to forcing cancer to self-destruct through a bioengineered, bonding molecule.

Gerald Crabtree, one of the study's authors and a professor of development biology, said he had the idea while hiking through Kings Mountain, California, during the pandemic period. The new compound would have to bind two proteins which already exist in the cancerous cells, turning apoptosis back on and making the cancer kill itself.

"We essentially want to have the same kind of specificity that can eliminate 60 billion cells with no bystanders," Crabtree said, so that no cell gets destroyed if it isn't the proper target of this new killing mechanism. The two proteins in question are known as BCL6, an oncogene which suppresses apoptosis-promoting genes in the B-cell lymphoma, and CDK9, an enzyme that catalyzes gene activation instead.

Mutated BCL6 proteins block a signal that should normally bring cancerous cells to activate apoptosis. Traditional, non-destructive cancer treatments have been targeting oncogenes to try and shut the cancer down, while the new study proposes a mechanism to exploit them instead. "You take something that the cancer is addicted to for its survival and you flip the script and make that be the very thing that kills it," Crabtree said.

The researchers tested the new molecule designed to bond BCL6 and CDK9 in diffuse large cell B-cell lymphoma cells in a lab environment, where the compound proved to be effective at killing the cancerous cells. Then they tested the compound in healthy mice to see if it had any toxic effect on normal cells, which it didn't. However, the molecule seemed to target a specific type of immune cells (B cells) which also contained a non-mutated version of the BCL6 protein.

The team is now testing the molecule on mice affected by diffuse large B-cell lymphomas, to see if the method is effective at killing cancer in living animals. The technique relies on the natural supply of BCL6 and CDK9 in cells, which means it will likely work only on cancerous lymphomas. After testing the new molecule with 859 different types of cancer cells in the lab, the researchers confirmed that it was able to kill only diffuse large cell B-cell lymphoma cells.

Permalink to story:

Stanford researchers develop molecule that forces cancer cells to kill themselves

 

[Uncle Al]

Once again .... another promising finding but will it ever see the light of day in the open market? There are far too many high profit drugs in the pharmaceutical industry to ever see this available to the masses at an affordable price. It's high time the Govt. gets directly involved and makes such a discovery protected and provided to the masses at reasonable costs. Sadly, the entire pharmaceutical industry is one that needs heavy regulation or non-profit if not being nationalized for the good of the citizens. We are far beyond allowing these companies to be "self-regulating" since they have proven they cannot.

 

[Squid Surprise]

While people bash "big pharma" repeatedly (and deservedly) for making obscene profits, there is the caveat that they DO make our lives far better.

Cancer kills millions every year and anything we can do to stop that is gold.

 

[Inthenstus]

Annnnnnd…. They are found dead by suicide in their homes in 3.. 2.. 1..

This has already happened before, hopefully they’ve published this all over before this became super public.

 

[maxxcool7421]

Heh, the best part of this .. is you can then engineer it to kill ALL people by a certain age. IE .. "Carrousel" for you old timers and non-BOTS trolling these posts..

 

[Lew Zealand]

Annnnnnd…. They are found dead by suicide in their homes in 3.. 2.. 1..

This has already happened before, hopefully they’ve published this all over before this became super public.

No they just "leaked" it here at TS and this article's gonna go away in like 10 minutes once THEY find it.

LOL conspiracy theories are so asinine.

 

[king cleanass]

It costs an insane amount of money to bring a novel drug to market.

As an example: Gene therapy company built a building from nothing, paying around 100 employees on site, we’re 3 years in and the drug is still in clinical trials. Not a single dollar has been made, it’s not commercial yet. A single batch costs over a million dollars. That’s just how the industry is. You want it safe? It has to go through multiple rounds of testing, and this costs time and money.

 

[kiwigraeme]

While people bash "big pharma" repeatedly (and deservedly) for making obscene profits, there is the caveat that they DO make our lives far better.

Cancer kills millions every year and anything we can do to stop that is gold.

I did upvote you, but some of these super expensive drugs only extend life for say 3 months on average for cancer. So vaccines, rna covid like personalised treatment, managing if to make it more benign ( cancer is always evolving , cells that survive the poison will come back stronger and more deadly ).
Also I think for some very hard to treat cancers , or very risky I think maybe going on a ketone low calorie diet may extend life better. Cancer in 90 plus old people grows very slow. Cancer loves sugar ( silly fruit munching Steve Jobs )

Anyway Cancer is a generic term for 500 types plus with multiple causes - so we are getting wins. Also optimistic better blood tests coming for deadly cancers like pancreatic etc

 

[Jvizzlee]

While we wait on these cures to hit the general public thru the free America healthcare system we must shine light on the cancers within our food system. Eliminate the source of the cause of the reproduction on the outside and inside.

 

[airbornex]

Using cancer’s own survival mechanisms against it is like some sort of biochemical jiu-jitsu. Flip the script on those cancer cells and make them self-destruct...

So Crabtree just casually cracked a cancer treatment while out hiking during the pandemic? Meanwhile, I was just trying to figure out how to make sourdough bread without burning down the kitchen. Hats off to the guy!

 

[FaTaL]

Bet it will be in pill form that you will have to take for the rest of your life.

 

[Freddie159]

Once again .... another promising finding but will it ever see the light of day in the open market? There are far too many high profit drugs in the pharmaceutical industry to ever see this available to the masses at an affordable price. It's high time the Govt. gets directly involved and makes such a discovery protected and provided to the masses at reasonable costs. Sadly, the entire pharmaceutical industry is one that needs heavy regulation or non-profit if not being nationalized for the good of the citizens. We are far beyond allowing these companies to be "self-regulating" since they have proven they cannot.

What you are missing is once they prove it works in people as designed then Big Pharma will start introducing hundreds if not thousands of new drugs to kill or enhance this or that type of cells, ie get rid of that sunburn overnight with this pill, get rid of splotchy skin overnight with this pill, enhance the bodies ability to heal from an injury with this pill and ALL because they figured out how to enhance or suppress some cells. The possibilities are as endless as Big Pharma's people can dream.

 

[Dimitrios]

WHO and WEF will do whatever is necessary to stop this.

 

[BadThad]

It costs an insane amount of money to bring a novel drug to market.

As an example: Gene therapy company built a building from nothing, paying around 100 employees on site, we’re 3 years in and the drug is still in clinical trials. Not a single dollar has been made, it’s not commercial yet. A single batch costs over a million dollars. That’s just how the industry is. You want it safe? It has to go through multiple rounds of testing, and this costs time and money.

I can attest, I worked in pharmaceuticals for 10 years early in my career. Our company borrowed and begged for cash while losing money over that time. NDA's and ANDA's are very expensive. What the ignorant don't understand is we have to make billions to pay back investors and the debt. Also, it's not unusual to invest tens of millions into something that never pans out at all after the R&D, expensive biostudies and regulatory burdens.

It's an expensive game to play, the profits have to be worth the investment otherwise there is little incentive to research. The fools clamoring for government control are scary. That would be the end of innovation and motivation. As with anything, the government is not your friend.

 

[scavengerspc]

Once again .... another promising finding but will it ever see the light of day in the open market?

Sure it will. But no insurance.
Show up at this place, and bring a couple hundred thousand or more.

 

[captaincranky]

Heh, the best part of this .. is you can then engineer it to kill ALL people by a certain age. IE .. "Carrousel" for you old timers and non-BOTS trolling these posts..

Yes, I've seen "Logan's Run". (at least twice). In fact, I probably have a copy laying around the house somewhere.

Although, I think, "Network", "Clockwork Orange" and "Blade Runner" were better. "Barbarella" is also good for a laugh once in a while.

 

[captaincranky]

While people bash "big pharma" repeatedly (and deservedly) for making obscene profits, there is the caveat that they DO make our lives far better.

Cancer kills millions every year and anything we can do to stop that is gold.

While that may be true, I still watch OTA TV. The money spent advertising these "new wonder drugs", is staggering.

As they're required to do, whether in fine print or out loud, they must publish the potential side effects. Which, seem to grow longer with each new iteration of a drug we already have a "cure for".

On standout is "Rexulti", which ostensibly is the successor to "Abilify". Well, the patent expired on Abilify, enter Rexulti. Since then, they've managed to convince the FDA that the drug is an adjunct treatment for Alzheimer's One has to question if a one molecule difference, is really all that substantial.

I have gotten all my other "old person shots", but the list off woes that can accompany the shingles vaccine, is a bridge too far. And yes, I have had all the "childhood diseases", measles, chicken pox, and the mumps (at 21..!).

Basically I'm sitting around wondering if, or when, I'm gonna start itching.

 

[MrBerru]

No kidding. It's the same cancer I have right now. Which surprisingly, the current treatment is pretty effective. But quimiotherapy is hard on the patient. This new reasearch could avoid most symptoms caused by the therapy: nausea, fatige, baldness, sometimes nerve pain, and so on.

I personally struggle the most with nausea. It's wierd, cause even though I take a "Coctail" of anti-nausea meds, my saliva feels wierd, food sometimes tastes off, and it's frustrating!

 

[bennyg]

Good to see progress, even if it's slow. I was researching colorectal carcinogenesis in 2005 measuring the effects of a diet change (insoluble dietary fibre) on the generic expression inside cells using (among others) a bcl family gene as a surrogate marker for apoptosis. The key remains to genotype the individual cancer to figure out what is mutated and what remains a viable target, and give the matching therapy. Which due to the health economics will always be more available to the wealthy. What we all can do is be healthy and reduce your chances up to that point (specific to reducing CRC risk is pooping regularly), and hope that if you do develop a cancer, it's found early while it's small and slow growing.

 

[toooooot]

The possibilities for suicide jokes are endless here.

 

[toooooot]

Good to see progress, even if it's slow. I was researching colorectal carcinogenesis in 2005 measuring the effects of a diet change (insoluble dietary fibre) on the generic expression inside cells using (among others) a bcl family gene as a surrogate marker for apoptosis. The key remains to genotype the individual cancer to figure out what is mutated and what remains a viable target, and give the matching therapy. Which due to the health economics will always be more available to the wealthy. What we all can do is be healthy and reduce your chances up to that point (specific to reducing CRC risk is pooping regularly), and hope that if you do develop a cancer, it's found early while it's small and slow growing.

While I agree with the most of it, I still blame most of the unhealthy people for their obesity. It is possible to eat healthy or at least somewhat healthy on a limited budget.
Perhaps, this is one thing the government should do, I mean limiting junk food manufacturers in various ways. We should man up and admit, we are eating ourselves into heart attack.
And this is not the business of those killing themselves with food, this is the national matter.