Login

Join for Free!
116871 members


Senescence & Cancer

Discussion of all aspects of cellular structure, physiology and communication.

Moderator: BioTeam

new IDa

Postby 2810712 » Thu Feb 03, 2005 6:28 am

Replacing a specefic gene appears more difficult than inducing another gene that will oppose the action of that specefic gene eg. kill the cancer cell or inhibit cell div.s or stop the expression of that specefic gene etc. ; but how can we introduce some gene only in the cancer cells ? I think, the recognition of cancer cells , for this we must introduce some changes in the vector being used........

What Do U Think?

hrushikesh
2810712
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 697
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 12:19 pm

Postby mith » Thu Feb 03, 2005 10:50 pm

I'm probably making this sound easier than it is but I have the notion that the viruses would invade almost all the cells. If the cell is normal nothing is changed since the old DNA is the same as the new one inserted. The abnormal cells though would change for the better.
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

agree

Postby 2810712 » Sat Feb 05, 2005 1:37 am

Yes,good IDa , U can add another copy
but how will you REPLACE the gene ?

hrushikesh.
2810712
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 697
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 12:19 pm


Postby mith » Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:05 am

Well viruses generallly attack a host cell by replacing its internal machinery with virii dna. If the virii DNA was one inserted by us(beneficial) then we could do what I've said above.
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby DevGrp » Tue Feb 08, 2005 5:38 pm

The trick would be indentifying the gene to change. This could be different in different people. The other problem is that the viral method would only work for ressesive mutations as the original "mutated" copy of the gene would still be present.

I'm don't sure how many cancer mutations are resesive but I suspect not many as we are a diploid species.

One way round this might be to use RNAi to silence the mutatated gene that was causing the rampant cell cyling. You still have the problem of targetting your viral vector just to cancer cells.

On the other hand gene therapy is being used in cancer research

(couldn't find an interesting FREE review)
DevGrp
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: UK

Postby mith » Tue Feb 08, 2005 8:23 pm

Isn't there a way to do it like with weed killers? I know weedkillers only target fast growing weeds and will leave your lawn grasses alone. Is it possible to apply the same principle to our cells?
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby DevGrp » Thu Feb 10, 2005 3:11 pm

Possibly, you need to target a feature of a cancer cell which it possesses but normal cells don't. A lot of work has been done on antibodies which recognise some feature of cancer cells, but not normal cells. these antibodies can then be used to deliver drugs / toxins direct to the cancer cells.

We did some work on a toxin which effected mitochondria, particularly highly active ones. The idea was that rapidly dividing cells (cancer cells) might be particularly sensitive. The toxin sure killed cells in culture but the idea went no further.
DevGrp
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: UK

howtoday

Postby 2810712 » Tue Feb 15, 2005 4:38 am

We did some work on a toxin which effected mitochondria, particularly highly active ones. The idea was that rapidly dividing cells (cancer cells) might be particularly sensitive. The toxin sure killed cells in culture but the idea went no further.

What about muscles and other such cells having more mitochondria ?
What if you can toxify only cancercells using appeopriate Abs?

hrushikesh
2810712
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 697
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 12:19 pm

Postby DevGrp » Tue Feb 15, 2005 12:50 pm

Yes we were looking at some sort of targetting.

Interestingly tumours tend to have more leaky blood vessels than normal tissues so sometimes drugs accumulate more in tumours naturally.
DevGrp
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: UK

leaky!!?

Postby 2810712 » Fri Feb 18, 2005 4:32 am

leaky! I didn't know . I knew that they have more blood vessels. What makes them leaky? This means there is some difference in the angiogenesis by tumours, isn't it?

hrushikesh
2810712
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 697
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 12:19 pm

Postby DevGrp » Fri Feb 18, 2005 9:54 am

my understanding, is that the process of angeogeneis in tumours is a bit shoddy and the blood vessels aren't as intact / well built as normal blood vessels.

A quick google search found:


http://www-ermm.cbcu.cam.ac.uk/04008270h.htm
DevGrp
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: UK

link!

Postby 2810712 » Mon Feb 21, 2005 4:52 am

Thax for the link.
:)

If U don't mind , in exactly which field U are doing research,DevGrp ?
thanx

hrushikesh
2810712
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 697
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 12:19 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Cell Biology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron