Advanced search

Message boards : GPUGRID CAFE : Cancer, healthy and normal cells are it really?

Author Message
Profile Zarck
Send message
Joined: 16 Aug 08
Posts: 143
Credit: 311,516,268
RAC: 381,021
Scientific publications
Message 46794 - Posted: 29 Mar 2017 | 12:32:04 UTC

Cancer, healthy and normal cells are it really?
When an organism undergoes an attack, two phenomena can occur, some of the cells go into "immortal" mode and duplicate in an anarchic way and this gives a tumor or "cancer", but the other cells called "healthy" are " Normal ", apparently they are, but in reality they go into" cell death "mode and this is mainly that kills the person with cancer, more than the" anarchic "cells.
Is it not possible to study these "healthy" cells, and reverse the two processes by forcing "immortal" cells to go into "cell death" mode, and forcing the so-called "healthy" cells to pass from "Cell death" mode to truly healthy mode?
Yours; @ + *_*

Cancer, les cellules saines et normales le sont elles vraiment ?
Lorsque un organisme subit une agression, deux phénomènes peuvent se produire, une partie des cellules passent en mode "immortelle" et se dupliquent de façon anarchique et cela donne une tumeur ou "cancer", mais les autres cellules dites "saines" sont elles "normales ?", apparement elles le sont, mais en réalité elles se mettent en mode "mort cellulaire" et c'est cela principalement qui tue la personne atteinte d'un cancer, plus que les cellules "anarchiques".
N'est il pas possible d'étudier ces cellules soit disant "saines", et inverser les deux processus en forçant les cellules "immortelles" à passer en mode "mort cellulaire", et forcer les cellules soient disant "saines" à passer du mode "mort cellulaire" au mode réellement sain ?
Bien à vous; @+ *_*

Send message
Joined: 20 Apr 15
Posts: 283
Credit: 1,095,607,007
RAC: 9,202
Scientific publications
Message 46808 - Posted: 1 Apr 2017 | 8:43:29 UTC

I beg to differ... cancer is solely caused by (a combination of misfortunate) gene or gene methylation alterations, which disable the controlled death program of a cell. Controlled cell death after replication is normal, essential, happens every day and does not kill the entire organism at all, you just keep on living with copies of your initial cells until the telomeres are exhausted. However, if a cell (copy) becomes "immortal" due to a damaged death program, it uncontrollably replicates itself, expatiates, displaces healthy tissue, alterates vital organs and increasingly consumes space. Actually you do not die from cancer cells but from their secondary health effects such as circulatory disorders, hypoxia or organ failure.

Cancer cells appear more often than you would believe, but your immune system (T-cells) detects and kills most of the mutations immediately. But in rare cases, the cancer cell is able hide or fool the T-cell. Modern immune therapy aims at this mechanism, it tries to adjust the T-cells to the target gene alterations. This therapy would be able even to cure terminal cancer (and it already has in first clinical trials!) having said this, the hit ratio is still not formidable and the T-cells sometimes attack healthy tissue as well. Which means some patients show critical inflammatory response. We are at the beginning here and it will likely take yet another 10 years until immune therapy can cure (or at least chronify) some (but not all) kinds of cancer.

If your body wants to live, it has to maintain its construction plan and eliminate any 'anarchic' cells. It is all about killing the immortal cells ... radiotherapy does the same, by wittingly altering all gene information of all cells in an area, hoping that an already modified cell will be even less functional thereafter, and die after all. Breaking a butterfly on a wheel, but we don't have anything else available at present.

"Reversing" the gene (or methylation) alteration is not so easy. That is something which requires advanced technologies such as CRISPR which will take even longer for deployability than the immune therapy. Currently it is too dangerous to use it, as you don't know if it really cuts a DNA at the right position. CRISPR is cheap, fast and brilliant, but the hit ratio still below 20% for many applications. A lot of improvement to be done in the next 20 years ahead.

I would love to see HCF1 protein folding and interaction simulations to help my little boy... someday.

Post to thread
