Brazilian wasp venom kills cancer cells by opening them up

http://phys.org/news/2015-09-brazilian-wasp-venom-cancer-cells.html

by caio1982 • 11 years ago

190 48 11 years ago

MP1 interacts with lipids that are abnormally distributed on the surface of cancer cells, creating gaping holes that allow molecules crucial for cell function to leak out.

This is fascinating. As IANAMD, I had no idea there were physical (or nanomechanical?) differences between normal and cancer cells. This sounds like a huge number of mistakes, maybe from the extremely rapid divisions.

So is Polybia-MP1 another game changer in the Cancer world?

venomsnake• 11 years ago

We have thousands effective ways to kill cancer cells. Making sure the host survives is the tricky part.

jMyles• 11 years ago

https://xkcd.com/1217/

jane_is_here4• 11 years ago

"So is Polybia-MP1 another game changer in the Cancer world?"

No. HN has been suckered yet again by a PR release.

These are similar to and around as reliable as the PR releases that claim to revolutionise the internet, cars, plastics, toothpaste or condoms.

qCOVET• 11 years ago

Since we are on the subject of cancer - allow me to pen down a few thoughts for those interested in the subject.

(a) You already know that ...Cancer could be caused by hundreds of different mutations in the genome that would disrupt a cell cycle control pathway. Which means it becomes increasingly difficult to find a single bullet solution to all cancers.

(b) You already know that ... Even if you find a way to target cancer cells, how do you differentiate between good cells vs. bad cells

(c) You may kindda know that... Researchers are trying hard to find specific markers on the cancer cell membrane, to differentiate them from good cells and target them for destruction. The WASP venom thing is another idea ... but venoms have been known to target calcium/calmodulin channels. So nothing too fancy.

(d) You may not know that... The most promising research in cancer therapy is to disrupt metabolic pathways of cancer cells. You see, doesn't matter what pathway led to the cause of cancer ... but they all need food to divide. If you could terminate their food supply, disrupt a metabolic pathway .. then there is a chance of stopping them...as a generic bullet for all cancers, irrespective of what mutation caused it. Furthermore, the metabolic pathway of cancer cells and normal cells are distinguishable.

Read more: Warburg effect and a paper that was published this year: http://www.news-medical.net/news/20150626/SLU-researchers-fi...

kinj28• 11 years ago

wouldnt a cell evolve to find food from other sources?

anon4• 11 years ago

I'm guessing it doesn't have enough food stored (if any) to carry on dividing and mutating once you've stopped its food supply.

drmilsurp2• 11 years ago

if by evolve you mean secrete VEGF to stimulate vascularization and thereby bring food from more sources, sure

FeepingCreature• 11 years ago

As opposed to diseases, cancer is new every time. If somebody's cancer cells evolve to become resistant to some treatment, this resistance cannot spread to other people. As such, you're only looking at evolution in a comparatively small ecosystem and over comparatively short times.

So "yes, but not necessarily".

sklogic• 11 years ago

Was this "WASP venom" typo intentional?

iLoch• 11 years ago

No sir this is legit Brazillian White Anglo Saxon Protestant venom.

rogeryu4• 11 years ago

(e) You may not know that ... cancer prevalence depends heavily on vitamin D levels. People living around the equator have a 40-60% lesser chance of getting cancer than people living in the US, Canada or Europe. This is even true for people living in Florida. We don't get enough UV-B from the sun, not like centuries ago when we didn't have to work indoors and didn't use sunscreen. People with dark or darker skin have an even bigger risk.

The risk of getting nonmelanoma skin cancer from UV-B is relatively low, and it's easy to treat. Melanoma skin cancer is dangerous, but not related to sun exposure. Taking vitamin D using pills or getting enough sun exposure (without sunscreen) without getting burnt may be the cheapest and most easy way to reduce cancer risk.

Below some links, these about breast cancer. AFAIK these numbers are similar for other cancers like liver, lung, colon, etc.

http://bigthink.com/devil-in-the-data/vitamin-d-sun-and-canc...

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/26/health/he-explain26

http://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/proc05/papers/p...

Or Google that yourself: https://www.google.com/webhp?q=cancer+rates+equator

mikecsh• 11 years ago

Sorry, what? Please provide some sources for these claims.

As far as I'm aware melanoma is most definitely related to sun exposure and there is no consensus opinion on vitamin-D and cancer prevention, with the most evidence being for it being protective against certain bowel cancers..

Edit: Here's a source for my view: http://www.nhs.uk/livewell/summerhealth/documents/concensus_... [3rd and 4th bullet points for example]

lifeisstillgood• 11 years ago

Seriously? Research please ... Not a challenge, more a desire for more

InclinedPlane• 11 years ago

That's still an open issue, and the direction of causality hasn't been nailed down yet, but it's interesting.

teekert• 11 years ago

"The most promising research..." ...Varies, at the moment it is definitely immune system related, in other words: It is all about how we can reignite the fire of the immune system against the cancer cells which often have immunosuppressive micro-environments (the stop the attacks of the body against the tumor by inactivating immune cells). (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6165/1432.full (2013))

mrfusion• 11 years ago

Regarding (d), has fasting/starvation ever been researched as a cure/treatment? I know there was one study about it mitgating the effects of chemotherapy.

reirob• 11 years ago

I have seen a documentary on Arte.TV about fasting. It's from T. De Lestrade und S. Gilman, 55 minutes long - not available online any more, but the information pages are there with comments [1] (German), [2] (French). I found the French version on youtube [3].

It's the most complete documentary that I have ever seen on this subject. Fascinating documentary, starting explaining that the biggest studies on fasting as cure was done in Soviet Union with tens of thousands of records about patients with different pathologies. Ends with the newest findings in USA where fasting was used to cure cancer.

[1] http://future.arte.tv/fr/sujet/le-jeune [2] http://future.arte.tv/de/thema/fasten [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytbXFXoT57w

Nano2rad• 11 years ago

Cancer has something to do with nerve cells. Organisms without nerve cells do not have cancer. Another important role is from lymph system.

Cancer may also have to something to do with some mechanisms of asexual reproduction.

beagle3• 11 years ago

If you read the article, it has an answer for (b) that so far works in culture and in human tumors inside animal models; Not quite the real thing, but probably the farthest you can get before human trials, and it is quite far.

With respect to (a) - yes, there are tens or hundreds of fundamentally different cancers. But there's a reason we call them all "cancer" - which is they do have common traits (unchecked growth, glycolisys as the preferred and often singular mode of metabolism - a.k.a the Warburg effect mentioned in the article), so it's not unthinkable that a few bullets could work for significant majority of cancers. It appears that the naked mole rat, a cancer-free rodent[1], has multiple mechanisms against cancer, one of of which is an overcrowding control.

I've read numerous accounts of the usefulness of fasting in fighting cancer (including complete remissions), but no scholarly articles that go far enough. The ignorance about fasting's effects on the human body and how long a relatively person can fast with no irreversible damage (hint: close to 50 days), is quite staggering. The body switches to ketones as an energy source, which the vast majority of cancer cells cannot use. I have found peer reviewed papers showing that fasting makes chemotherapy significantly more effective. It could be your (a) bullet, because it relies on the (b) differentiation.

Wikipedia[0] doesn't list an exact date, but apparently, the Warburg hypothesis dates to around 1920. The Nobel Prize for this discovery was awarded to him in 1931.

I've first read about Warburg and his discovery in 1999, and I asked every MD I met at the time about it - not a single one was aware of it. Somehow, everyone is so specialized today that knowledge that should be common isn't. I assume once a successful therapy based on this effect is developed, though, it will become common knowledge.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Heinrich_Warburg

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_mole-rat#Resistance_to_c...

Jun8• 11 years ago

What I don't understand is: how did they first think of testing this venom for its anticancer properties? Do researchers test many different antimicrobial substances, Edison fashion, to see which kills cancer cells?

sjg007• 11 years ago

Yep.

ddoscampaign• 11 years ago

Any idea how this is done at scale, on C cancer cell lines x W compounds?

jane_is_here4• 11 years ago

Read the primary source.

Abstract: http://www.cell.com/biophysj/abstract/S0006-3495(15)00768-7

Full text: http://www.cell.com/biophysj/fulltext/S0006-3495(15)00768-7

Please do not go off on a tangent after reading brain dead PR releases meant for the masses. These are the scientific world's equivalent of clickbait and have little connection to the actual study.

stevoski• 11 years ago

I wish the "novel discovery/technique against cancer" news items would stop appearing on hacker news. They are a staple of mainstream media, always with super promising headlines, but with nothing but a far-fetched, vague promise behind them.

As far as I can tell, they are from press releases from research centers who need to get some media attention to secure their future funding. But they are never actually cures for cancer.

nitrogen• 11 years ago

As someone who does not follow the field, I enjoy knowing about new things people are working on, even if they never pan out. It helps expand the horizon of what my mind can conceive as possible.

noonespecial• 11 years ago

There's a "Darmok and Jalad" xkcd for this phenomenon. Its #1217.

Maybe we should just shrug and say, "hmf, just another 1217".

MrJagil• 11 years ago

I feel like I need some arguments and examples pertaining to this specific article to swallow your objection.

DennisP• 11 years ago

We haven't "cured cancer" but the death rates for many varieties are going down. One headline this year was for an immune system therapy against advanced melanoma, which is dramatically lowering death rates in trials; I have a neighbor who's actually getting that therapy.

Aoyagi2• 11 years ago

I keep hearing about these almost miraculous cures, what would my ontology office (if I had cancer) tell me if I asked for Brazilian wasp venom treatment?

task_queue• 11 years ago

"No, go to Brazil."

No one wants to lose their job or freedom if something goes wrong when you guinea pig a patient.

bvm• 11 years ago

"you're looking for science -> disease -> treatment -> oncology, down the corridor"

logicallee• 11 years ago

This is a really funny comment!

jane_is_here4• 11 years ago

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/

Aoyagi2• 11 years ago

Hm, I've only just noticed it. I blame my boss for confusing me by using the word "ontology" too much recently.

baldfat3• 11 years ago

September is Childhood Cancer Month.

I lost my sister to Brain Cancer in 1996 when she was 15

I lost my son to Bone Cancer in 2013 when he was 12

Most Cancer Charities give penny or so to Childhood Cancer research and Federal Research Grants give 4 cents to the dollar to Childhood Cancer research.

In the last 20 years only 2 new drugs have been approved till a 3rd this spring.

St Baldrick's and Childhood Cancer Research Fund give the majority of their funds to research and St Baldrick's actually help find the first new treatment in years with a 30% better results! http://www.stbaldricks.org/blog/post/breaking-news-the-fda-a...

brianbreslin• 11 years ago

First off, I am sorry for your loss, cannot begin to understand how it must feel. Secondly, that is incredible about the new drug, it is crazy it takes that long to find more possible treatments for such a widespread cause of death.

What are some more effective ways we can give or help that won't be eaten up by overhead of the charities?

smt88• 11 years ago

Cancer is a widespread cause of death, but unfortunately "cancer" is a very broad category. Just because two illnesses are both classified as cancer doesn't mean they'll respond to the same drugs/treatment. We're finding a lot more success with tailored approaches than creating new drugs.

I think one of the most promising approaches to treatment is discussed here: http://www.ted.com/talks/jay_bradner_open_source_cancer_rese...

I have a friend who works at American Cancer Society. I asked him the best place to donate to, and he said Livestrong Foundation. I don't know his reasoning, but he's brilliant and incredibly knowledgeable about cancer.

martincmartin• 11 years ago

I'm very sorry for your loss. I lost my wife a few years back, and read that losing a child is generally harder than losing a spouse. I can't imagine someone having to go through something harder than what I went through. And you lost a sibling earlier too. Although I don't know you, I do sincerely wish you strength, and that things get better for you.

baldfat3• 11 years ago

A loss of a loved one hurts and changes us forever. So sorry to hear of yours.

The one big thing that helps me is to know is they taught me to savor life and to live it like it is a precious gift and to the fullest. So I try to do things they could do but know they would have enjoyed and remember them.

jane_is_here4• 11 years ago

"In the last 20 years only 2 new drugs have been approved till a 3rd this spring."

Wrong.

In the first 7 months of 2015 the FDA approved 6 oncological drugs

In 2014 the FDA approved 10 oncological drugs

In 2013 the FDA approved 12 oncological drugs

https://www.centerwatch.com/drug-information/fda-approved-dr...

It is true that only 3 drugs have been approved specifically for neuroblastoma, a rare childhood cancer. This accounts for 6% of childhood cancers.

Misrepresenting facts does nobody any good.

baldfat3• 11 years ago

"In the last 20 years, only two new drugs have been approved that were specifically developed to treat children with cancer." You showed oncology which has ZERO impact on children since they are not approved for children and hence illegal for doctors to use for children. I lived this life man.

SORRY BUT WHAT A JERK! Misrepresenting facts does nobody any good but makes you a jerk. 100% true statement 3 drugs in 20 years have been approved by the FDA for Pediatric Cancer!

Here is the legislation that the community is trying to help get passed : http://www.stbaldricks.org/blog/post/fda-reform-act-signed-i...

This isn't some made up make believe this is the truth kids get the RAW end of the stick in cancer research. My son died on a bone cancer that quite possibly has more research money spent on curing the disease for dogs than finding a cure for children.

Those 22 ontological drugs are not PEDIATRIC. They don't help PEDIATRIC cancer patients. You misrepresented the truth so fast and hard to your notion that what I said was untrue. The sad fact is it would take less time to find a drug for children and than use on adults. If it comes from adults the research actually has to start from scratch due to the fast growing bodies of children and very few if any have any possible benifit for children.

Brazilian wasp venom kills cancer cells by opening them up

Related Stories