7 ms·

Scientists Make Mice Immune to Radiation

34 points by miles 16y ago

miles 16y ago
FTA: In mice, when Dr. Isenberg and his team introduced a drug that prevented a protein, thrombospondin-1, from binding to a surface cell receptor called CD47, the animals could endure almost unheard-of doses of radiation with virtually no ill effects. This is from late 2009. Does anyone have an update on this research? Would obviously be a great boon if it was equally effective in humans.
- anigbrowl 16y ago
  http://www.radiationcontroltherapies.com/news-and-updates.html http://www.radiationcontroltherapies.com/news-and-updates.ht...
  - miles 16y ago
    Very cool - thanks! Looks like the latest update is that "The CCR-NCI of the NIH recently recognized the work of Dr. Isenberg and collaborators in controlling radiation by CD47 blockade as one of the 'top science advances for 2010'". Nice to hear that the work is apparently regarded as credible. Hope to hear more about it soon!
- biot 16y ago
  It would be ironic if this therapy causes increased risk of cancer, for which chemotherapy then has little effect. Then again, if the resistance is temporary I imagine some workers in Fukushima might benefit from this once it's been demonstrated safe enough.
  - kajecounterhack 16y ago
    Go to the second page "Perhaps equally exciting, Dr. Isenberg and his team found that while his technique protected healthy cells from damage, it actually increased the effectiveness of radiation treatments on cancer cells."
    - bedris 16y ago
      This could also be due to the fact that CD47 blockade allows preferential phagocytosis of cancer cells by macrophages [1,2] so it might not be solely radiation sensitivity that is leading to the clearance of the tumor cells. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19632179 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19632179 [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19632178 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19632178
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    "safe enough" as in "safer than standard treatment". In their place, I'd prefer a taste for cheese and an overwhelming fear of cats to radiation sickness.
  - GrandMasterBirt 16y ago
    Chemotherapy is not rad therapy. Diff methods, both pretty effective in hurting healthy cells.
    - biot 16y ago
      You learn something new every day... radiotherapy is the radiation treatment. For some reason I thought chemotherapy included the radiation part.
masklinn 16y ago
So coppelions are real?
Tichy 16y ago
How am I supposed to mutate into a superhero if radiation has no effect?
- crm114 16y ago
  There's always lab explosions and alien/mystical rings.
- reitzensteinm 16y ago
  I know you're joking, but from what Udo is saying, it seems like this is stopping the body from killing off corrupted cells. So if anything, this would actually be a step closer to super hero mutation.
  - flipbrad 16y ago
    Not really. It's a step closer to randomly dispersed neoplasia/tumours popping up around your body! step closer to have super hero mutant children, perhaps, if it's keeping your gonads alive but mutant.
    - reitzensteinm 16y ago
      Well, to be fair, a step closer doesn't mean it's not still basically impossible... but you're right, children are a far more likely vector.
possibilistic 16y ago
I don't really buy this. There's simply no way that messing with the NO pathway can prevent DNA degradation resulting from radiation exposure. I'm not familiar with irradiation units and how they correlate to DNA damage, but all amounts are harmful to the molecule. Ionizing radiation damage can be fixed via repair pathways, but it's simply a function of probability as to when this machinery fails in a critical location. The paper might be interesting to read, though, especially if it got cited. As always, news articles tend to inflate claims and miss the point entirely.
- Joakal 16y ago
  Look to nature surviving so well in Chernobyl?
  - smackay 16y ago
    Nature is doing so well around Chernobyl because of the lack of humans. I don't have a reference to hand but I beleive that the birds in the area have a high rate of genetic defects and low reproductive success. That fact that the environment seems to be doing well is a statement of how much impact humans have on their surroundings.
    - copper 16y ago
      Yes, I remember that one: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-chernobyl-birds-smaller-brains.html http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-chernobyl-birds-smaller-... Rereading it, it seems that the effects seen on the birds are seen in humans too, but at higher contamination levels.
  - Tichy 16y ago
    Nature adapts - it might counter with more births and shorter life spans, or whatever. Just because cockroaches prosper doesn't mean humans would.
  - possibilistic 16y ago
    I doubt "nature" and humans utilize the same repair processes. There are also a wide variety of reproduction strategies that minimize the requirement for long lasting information integrity in any single individual. It'd be incredibly interesting to look for changes in the repair mechanisms of these organisms--especially the promoters. I bet they're being expressed at ridiculously high levels.
bedris 16y ago
Here is the original Sci Transl Med (2008) paper: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2811586/?tool=pubmed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2811586/?tool=pu... And here is a follow-up paper in Am J Pathol (2008): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2543077/?tool=pubmed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2543077/?tool=pu... Both are freely available at the links provided.
Udo 16y ago
As has become standard in science articles, this one too is highly sensationalistic and potentially misleading. NO is, in low doses, a signaling molecule used by the body to facilitate intercellular communication. Similarly to ischemic attacks (as in strokes), what follows acute radiation exposure is a massive disruption of normal cell operations. There are, to use a bit of programmer lingo here, "checksums" in place to detect these kinds of disruptions and to shut down affected cells immediately. This is essentially like a segmentation fault or any other kind of fatal exception, and it's called apoptosis. During normal conditions, apoptosis signaling pathways are essential to weed out cells that aren't functioning properly. During massive crisis, however, this mechanism kills people, because it is suddenly triggered in a large amount of cells. That's what kills stroke and heart attack victims (if they survive the incident itself). The body simply doesn't know that in this case it would be life-saving if it kept corrupted cells alive. A similar thing happens with acute radiation poisoning: cells die en masse, usually the mucosae are affected the worst, leading to massive shock and internal bleeding. This particular research apparently focuses on halting these apoptosis pathways, so the body doesn't self destruct. Yes, that's essential. However, there is a price to pay that the article almost completely ignores. While interfering with the cell death signal saves you from immediate death, it does nothing to repair damaged porteins and DNA.
- miles 16y ago
  As has become standard in strongly-upvoted HN posts, this one too is highly sensationalistic and potentially misleading. I am genuinely sorry to be so snarky, but I am really tired of scientific-sounding arguments (like the "Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors" article) being automatically credited on this site. "While interfering with the cell death signal saves you from immediate death, it does nothing to repair damaged porteins and DNA." Did you bother to read the second page? "Also, a bigger mystery is figuring out how, by blocking this pathway, cells are able to fix the damaged DNA within. Dr. Isenberg says they know that following radiation exposure, the DNA is scrambled, but somehow, with this treatment, the cells are able to get themselves right." "'It's not that we're blocking radiation from hitting the tissue,' he says. 'Somehow...they repair themselves, and go about their business.'"
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

34 points by miles 16y ago

miles 16y ago

FTA: In mice, when Dr. Isenberg and his team introduced a drug that prevented a protein, thrombospondin-1, from binding to a surface cell receptor called CD47, the animals could endure almost unheard-of doses of radiation with virtually no ill effects. This is from late 2009. Does anyone have an update on this research? Would obviously be a great boon if it was equally effective in humans.

anigbrowl 16y ago
http://www.radiationcontroltherapies.com/news-and-updates.html http://www.radiationcontroltherapies.com/news-and-updates.ht...
- miles 16y ago
  Very cool - thanks! Looks like the latest update is that "The CCR-NCI of the NIH recently recognized the work of Dr. Isenberg and collaborators in controlling radiation by CD47 blockade as one of the 'top science advances for 2010'". Nice to hear that the work is apparently regarded as credible. Hope to hear more about it soon!
biot 16y ago
It would be ironic if this therapy causes increased risk of cancer, for which chemotherapy then has little effect. Then again, if the resistance is temporary I imagine some workers in Fukushima might benefit from this once it's been demonstrated safe enough.
- kajecounterhack 16y ago
  Go to the second page "Perhaps equally exciting, Dr. Isenberg and his team found that while his technique protected healthy cells from damage, it actually increased the effectiveness of radiation treatments on cancer cells."
  - bedris 16y ago
    This could also be due to the fact that CD47 blockade allows preferential phagocytosis of cancer cells by macrophages [1,2] so it might not be solely radiation sensitivity that is leading to the clearance of the tumor cells. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19632179 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19632179 [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19632178 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19632178
- rbanffy 16y ago
  "safe enough" as in "safer than standard treatment". In their place, I'd prefer a taste for cheese and an overwhelming fear of cats to radiation sickness.
- GrandMasterBirt 16y ago
  Chemotherapy is not rad therapy. Diff methods, both pretty effective in hurting healthy cells.
  - biot 16y ago
    You learn something new every day... radiotherapy is the radiation treatment. For some reason I thought chemotherapy included the radiation part.

masklinn 16y ago

So coppelions are real?

Tichy 16y ago

How am I supposed to mutate into a superhero if radiation has no effect?

crm114 16y ago
There's always lab explosions and alien/mystical rings.
reitzensteinm 16y ago
I know you're joking, but from what Udo is saying, it seems like this is stopping the body from killing off corrupted cells. So if anything, this would actually be a step closer to super hero mutation.
- flipbrad 16y ago
  Not really. It's a step closer to randomly dispersed neoplasia/tumours popping up around your body! step closer to have super hero mutant children, perhaps, if it's keeping your gonads alive but mutant.
  - reitzensteinm 16y ago
    Well, to be fair, a step closer doesn't mean it's not still basically impossible... but you're right, children are a far more likely vector.

possibilistic 16y ago

I don't really buy this. There's simply no way that messing with the NO pathway can prevent DNA degradation resulting from radiation exposure. I'm not familiar with irradiation units and how they correlate to DNA damage, but all amounts are harmful to the molecule. Ionizing radiation damage can be fixed via repair pathways, but it's simply a function of probability as to when this machinery fails in a critical location. The paper might be interesting to read, though, especially if it got cited. As always, news articles tend to inflate claims and miss the point entirely.

Joakal 16y ago
Look to nature surviving so well in Chernobyl?
- smackay 16y ago
  Nature is doing so well around Chernobyl because of the lack of humans. I don't have a reference to hand but I beleive that the birds in the area have a high rate of genetic defects and low reproductive success. That fact that the environment seems to be doing well is a statement of how much impact humans have on their surroundings.
  - copper 16y ago
    Yes, I remember that one: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-chernobyl-birds-smaller-brains.html http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-chernobyl-birds-smaller-... Rereading it, it seems that the effects seen on the birds are seen in humans too, but at higher contamination levels.
- Tichy 16y ago
  Nature adapts - it might counter with more births and shorter life spans, or whatever. Just because cockroaches prosper doesn't mean humans would.
- possibilistic 16y ago
  I doubt "nature" and humans utilize the same repair processes. There are also a wide variety of reproduction strategies that minimize the requirement for long lasting information integrity in any single individual. It'd be incredibly interesting to look for changes in the repair mechanisms of these organisms--especially the promoters. I bet they're being expressed at ridiculously high levels.

bedris 16y ago

Here is the original Sci Transl Med (2008) paper: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2811586/?tool=pubmed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2811586/?tool=pu... And here is a follow-up paper in Am J Pathol (2008): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2543077/?tool=pubmed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2543077/?tool=pu... Both are freely available at the links provided.

Udo 16y ago

As has become standard in science articles, this one too is highly sensationalistic and potentially misleading. NO is, in low doses, a signaling molecule used by the body to facilitate intercellular communication. Similarly to ischemic attacks (as in strokes), what follows acute radiation exposure is a massive disruption of normal cell operations. There are, to use a bit of programmer lingo here, "checksums" in place to detect these kinds of disruptions and to shut down affected cells immediately. This is essentially like a segmentation fault or any other kind of fatal exception, and it's called apoptosis. During normal conditions, apoptosis signaling pathways are essential to weed out cells that aren't functioning properly. During massive crisis, however, this mechanism kills people, because it is suddenly triggered in a large amount of cells. That's what kills stroke and heart attack victims (if they survive the incident itself). The body simply doesn't know that in this case it would be life-saving if it kept corrupted cells alive. A similar thing happens with acute radiation poisoning: cells die en masse, usually the mucosae are affected the worst, leading to massive shock and internal bleeding. This particular research apparently focuses on halting these apoptosis pathways, so the body doesn't self destruct. Yes, that's essential. However, there is a price to pay that the article almost completely ignores. While interfering with the cell death signal saves you from immediate death, it does nothing to repair damaged porteins and DNA.

miles 16y ago
As has become standard in strongly-upvoted HN posts, this one too is highly sensationalistic and potentially misleading. I am genuinely sorry to be so snarky, but I am really tired of scientific-sounding arguments (like the "Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors" article) being automatically credited on this site. "While interfering with the cell death signal saves you from immediate death, it does nothing to repair damaged porteins and DNA." Did you bother to read the second page? "Also, a bigger mystery is figuring out how, by blocking this pathway, cells are able to fix the damaged DNA within. Dr. Isenberg says they know that following radiation exposure, the DNA is scrambled, but somehow, with this treatment, the cells are able to get themselves right." "'It's not that we're blocking radiation from hitting the tissue,' he says. 'Somehow...they repair themselves, and go about their business.'"

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]