6 ms·

Hi, pathology resident here, studying prostate cancer, and apoptosis in particular. This is an interesting study, and I'm glad to have seen it. I submit that gr

Hi, pathology resident here, studying prostate cancer, and apoptosis in particular. This is an interesting study, and I'm glad to have seen it. I submit that growing a line of cells in culture has relatively little the natural progression of those cells in vivo. Indeed, any cell line that can be propogated in definitely ex vivo surely has some funky stuff going on inside. So, if you're inclined to say that we should be skeptical of mouse models, we should be really skeptical of cell lines. For example, the modal number of chromosomes in these cells is something like 85 (normal is 46). That said, interesting idea. I noted in the methods that the cells were not grown in low-oxygen conditions, and I'm wondering, if the authors are listening, why they didn't do that.

agumonkey 10y ago
May I ask you what you think about organ generation. As testbed I mean, is it naive to believe it could be a better substrate than ex-vivo, and than in-vivo in other animals ?
mazsa 10y ago
check those who are citing them with the keyword 'oxygen': https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=oxygen&cites=12339973123494715706&scipsc=1 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=oxygen&cites=1233997312... (or without it: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?&cites=12339973123494715706 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?&cites=123399731234947157... )
- niels_olson 10y ago
  If you're referring to the results about VO2max, please bear in mind that growing cells in culture has nothing to do with that. The issue is that cells generally accumulate far less oxidative damage when grown at 3% oxygen, as compared to atmospheric (21%). So, perhaps they did grow them at low oxygen tension, but it doesn't seem like that's the case from their methods.
craigyk 10y ago
Well said. I find it disappointing how many cancer researchers delight in their arcane knowledge of cell line characteristics and will debate heartily about which is the right model for an experiment, so at the end of the day other cancer researchers can review their work and nod approvingly about their choice of cell lines, etc. These cells are exceedingly unnatural, even by the standards of cancer cells, and their extensive use in research now far exceeds their ability to tell us things that are meaningful about cancer in the body (IMO). I understand science requires reproducibility, and (in principle at least) cell line work is more reproducible... but I'm worried were chasing red herrings. If you are using cell lines to do basic research on a very specific subsystems, that is likely OK, but so much research these days is "translational" and involves observing cell-wide changes and reactions.

agumonkey 10y ago

May I ask you what you think about organ generation. As testbed I mean, is it naive to believe it could be a better substrate than ex-vivo, and than in-vivo in other animals ?

mazsa 10y ago

check those who are citing them with the keyword 'oxygen': https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=oxygen&cites=12339973123494715706&scipsc=1 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=oxygen&cites=1233997312... (or without it: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?&cites=12339973123494715706 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?&cites=123399731234947157... )

niels_olson 10y ago
If you're referring to the results about VO2max, please bear in mind that growing cells in culture has nothing to do with that. The issue is that cells generally accumulate far less oxidative damage when grown at 3% oxygen, as compared to atmospheric (21%). So, perhaps they did grow them at low oxygen tension, but it doesn't seem like that's the case from their methods.

craigyk 10y ago

Well said. I find it disappointing how many cancer researchers delight in their arcane knowledge of cell line characteristics and will debate heartily about which is the right model for an experiment, so at the end of the day other cancer researchers can review their work and nod approvingly about their choice of cell lines, etc. These cells are exceedingly unnatural, even by the standards of cancer cells, and their extensive use in research now far exceeds their ability to tell us things that are meaningful about cancer in the body (IMO). I understand science requires reproducibility, and (in principle at least) cell line work is more reproducible... but I'm worried were chasing red herrings. If you are using cell lines to do basic research on a very specific subsystems, that is likely OK, but so much research these days is "translational" and involves observing cell-wide changes and reactions.