5 ms·

One thing to be cognizant about is that cancer is really a disease caused by the reverse aging of particular cells. If you make a cell think it is too young it

One thing to be cognizant about is that cancer is really a disease caused by the reverse aging of particular cells. If you make a cell think it is too young it is going to become invasive. We don't normally think of embryonic development requiring invasive behavior of cells, but that is certainly the case. Take a look at the development of the cerebral cortex and how cells must travel through other layers to reach their destination. It appears that they are targeting telomerase which is very interesting and parallels cancer where its over-expression is used often as a marker. But then again telomerase under-expression can occur in early-stage cancer and is thought to contribute to genome instability/mutation to affect other genes before it is eventually over-expressed. So this kind of experiment is really exciting and will almost certainly give us insight into many different medical fields. I just hope that her experiment winds up on the preventative side of cancer rather than the causative one.

narrator 11y ago
No, cancer is caused by DNA damage. The longer a cell lives, the more damage it gathers, so if you make a cell immortal and the mechanisms the body has for killing malfunctioning cells or repairing damage to damaged DNA is disabled, weakened, or overwhelmed, then you get cancer.
- technotony 11y ago
  Well, cancer is complicated. There are types that behave like embryo cells (including one benign type which can create hair or toe nails randomly in the body). The previous posters final comment is the critical one: let's hope she hasn't given herself cancer. Previous gene therapy trials were all stopped because of that risk. Current Crispr techniques (if that's what she used) aren't specific enough to avoid off target effects, those could easily cause cancer. I tend to be quite pro DIY medicine, but this still seems quite rash to me because of those risks.
- PetitPrince 11y ago
  DNA damage can lead to the deregularization of various cell mechanisms, the ability of the cell to repair DNA being one of them. Only when several of those mechanisms go rogue you get cancer; having only one or two of them disabled is usually not sufficient. In your example, an immortal cell who cannot repair DNA or even identify damaged DNA wouldn't be that dangerous, since it doesn't have the signal to reproduce wildly. See D. Hanahan and R. Weinberg "Hallmarks of Cancer: The Next Generation" for a scholarly (and quite readable) review http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867411001279 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867411...
- erikgaas 11y ago
  Yes those are all important parts in the development of cancer. But you have to take into account the tools that cancer has to take advantage of when it comes to invasiveness and proliferation. DNA instability is the root cause which results in incorrect signalling, cell cycle progression, cell morphology, and immune system evasion. But take angiogenesis, an extremely important tool for a developing embryo, and how ubiquitous it is for a growing tumor. But we can go farther and consider the factors that influence the guidance of a cell during development. Accutane or Isotretinoin is very similar in structure to retinoic acid, a guidance molecule in the posterior embryo. Consequently isotretinoin causes birth defects. Interestingly isoretinoin has also been implicated as an anti-cancer treatment. Thalidomide, which also interrupts proper development has also been used as an anti-cancer treatment. My point isn't to dispute the importance of DNA damage and gene expression profile changes, but rather to emphasize the importance of metastasis and its apparent parallels with embryonic development since metastasis is the main reason (sans leukemias) why cancer has such a high lethality.

narrator 11y ago

No, cancer is caused by DNA damage. The longer a cell lives, the more damage it gathers, so if you make a cell immortal and the mechanisms the body has for killing malfunctioning cells or repairing damage to damaged DNA is disabled, weakened, or overwhelmed, then you get cancer.

technotony 11y ago
Well, cancer is complicated. There are types that behave like embryo cells (including one benign type which can create hair or toe nails randomly in the body). The previous posters final comment is the critical one: let's hope she hasn't given herself cancer. Previous gene therapy trials were all stopped because of that risk. Current Crispr techniques (if that's what she used) aren't specific enough to avoid off target effects, those could easily cause cancer. I tend to be quite pro DIY medicine, but this still seems quite rash to me because of those risks.
PetitPrince 11y ago
DNA damage can lead to the deregularization of various cell mechanisms, the ability of the cell to repair DNA being one of them. Only when several of those mechanisms go rogue you get cancer; having only one or two of them disabled is usually not sufficient. In your example, an immortal cell who cannot repair DNA or even identify damaged DNA wouldn't be that dangerous, since it doesn't have the signal to reproduce wildly. See D. Hanahan and R. Weinberg "Hallmarks of Cancer: The Next Generation" for a scholarly (and quite readable) review http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867411001279 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867411...
erikgaas 11y ago
Yes those are all important parts in the development of cancer. But you have to take into account the tools that cancer has to take advantage of when it comes to invasiveness and proliferation. DNA instability is the root cause which results in incorrect signalling, cell cycle progression, cell morphology, and immune system evasion. But take angiogenesis, an extremely important tool for a developing embryo, and how ubiquitous it is for a growing tumor. But we can go farther and consider the factors that influence the guidance of a cell during development. Accutane or Isotretinoin is very similar in structure to retinoic acid, a guidance molecule in the posterior embryo. Consequently isotretinoin causes birth defects. Interestingly isoretinoin has also been implicated as an anti-cancer treatment. Thalidomide, which also interrupts proper development has also been used as an anti-cancer treatment. My point isn't to dispute the importance of DNA damage and gene expression profile changes, but rather to emphasize the importance of metastasis and its apparent parallels with embryonic development since metastasis is the main reason (sans leukemias) why cancer has such a high lethality.