8 ms·

Honey bee venom found to kill breast cancer cells

142 points by L_226 6y ago

0xdada 6y ago
... in mice
- mikece 6y ago
  Mice are used for medical testing of drugs all the time. A friend of mind who is both an MD and a PhD toxicologist tried to explain to me once why mice are ideal for testing drugs that could be used some day in humans but I sorta zoned out after five minutes (it was a social setting and I might have been drinking something if memory serves). When a study can be replicated and show statistically significant results then the study is moved to more "human like" subjects but when it comes to the way cancers and tumors work it's apparently 99.999% the same in mice as in humans.
piokoch 6y ago
Here we go again. If someone searches for a good example of journalist reporting scientific results in a very wrong why, here it is. Not understanding difference between in vivo and in vitro study, not understanding that there are multiple and easy ways to kill cancer like hammer, fire, road roller, etc. Sad to see another click-bait article since people get convinced that doctors and scientists are promising cure for cancer but are not able to deliver anything, big pharma secretly tries to stop progress and so on.
- gus_massa 6y ago
  At lest this part is better than most reports: > Dr Duffy did not want to use words like breakthrough or cure, stressing this was just the beginning and much more research needed to be done.
  - Valgrim 6y ago
    The paper indicates that the test were done in vivo, in mice models. They also used a synthetic version of a particular compound (melittin), as an adjuvant with an existing cancer drug. They also determined how the compound affected those cells. (plasma membranes formed pores, and interferring with cancer-signalling pathways) "The study also found when the venom's main component was combined with existing chemotherapy drugs, it was extremely efficient at reducing tumour growth in mice."
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  Obligatory: https://xkcd.com/1217/ https://xkcd.com/1217/
- mikece 6y ago
  I wish I could up-vote this 1000x. Scientific literacy is beyond lacking these days, and the number of people who even know what "in vitro" or "in vivo" actually means is even more staggering. My favorite are the people/groups who tout the toxicity of products like Roundup to skin tissue in an in vitro experiment, completely overlooking the fact that the surfactant used in Roundup to make glyphosate stick to a plant so it can be absorbed causes chemical burns to the skin if you pour it on and leave it on... which, in vitro, kills skin tissue. All of which says nothing of the toxic effects to human stomach enzymes of plants which have absobed glyphosate. But hey, it's a headline on which people will click... Perhaps even more staggering is the illiteracy of people regarding the field of statistics. I have read that epidemiologists are constantly having to explain the statistics of their findings to MDs who know medicine but not statistics. If medical doctors are stumped by the language and rules of statistics I don't expect news editors or presenters to do any better with it.
  - ddek 6y ago
    On ‘in vitro’ and ‘in vivo’. Maybe we’d have more success communicating this difference if we didn’t expect the layperson to know jargon? Yes, it’s two words, but they’re pretty similar so confusion is inevitable.
    - soperj 6y ago
      I asked my girlfriend to sit on my lap. When she took a shit on my lap I wasn't mad though, since yes, it's two words, but they're pretty similar so confusion is inevitable.
      - RockIslandLine 6y ago
        This kind of satire is unnecessary and unhelpful. It costs nothing to say "lab testing" instead of "in vitro". Literally the same number of syllables, zero loss of precision, and immediately understandable to a wider audience.
        lhorie 6y ago
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- trentnix 6y ago
  The author is a member of the 'I F* LOVE SCIENCE GROUP' on Facebook. What more could you want?</sarcasm>
- robotresearcher 6y ago
  I don't think that criticism is warranted for this article. It seems quite careful to me. It says nothing about a therapy except that it's too early to talk about a therapy. It states facts and no promises are made. The only breathlessness here is that the local scientists are super excited. Headline: "Harry Perkins Institute of Medical Research study finds honeybee venom rapidly kills aggressive breast cancer cells" "Key points: - The research was published in the journal Nature Precision Oncology - It found honeybee venom was effective in killing breast cancer cells - Researchers say the discovery is exciting but there is a long way to go" Last paragraph: "Dr Duffy did not want to use words like breakthrough or cure, stressing this is just the beginning, and much more research needs to be done. "There's a long way to go in terms of how we would deliver it in the body and, you know, looking at toxicities and maximum tolerated doses before it ever went further," she said."
  - hasperdi 6y ago
    If you substitute the words "honeybee venom" with "bleach", the key points you mentioned stay true. My point is, this paper doesn't have a very useful finding.
    - robotresearcher 6y ago
      If the article was about newly discovered action of bleach on cancer cells, and we didn't already believe that was a no-go for a therapy, that would also be an interesting article, yes. Time will tell if this finding turns out to be useful.
pella 6y ago
Context: "Bee venom in cancer therapy" (2011 ) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10555-011-9339-3 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10555-011-9339-3
stevespang 6y ago
The Russians knew about this >20 years ago.
jbob2000 6y ago
Netflix has a documentary series called Unwell which dissects these modern "health therapies". They have an episode on Bee Sting therapy, which the documentary does a pretty good job of explaining fairly. I recommend this if you're curious about the state of this practice. Bee venom is a mixture of more than 40 different compounds and its mixture varies a lot from bee to bee. Whatever effect you can get from these compounds would be better served by studying the compounds rather than nature's uncontrolled homogenisation of them.
- Valgrim 6y ago
  It seems that's exactly what the researcher has done: "She said a component of the venom called melittin is what had the killing effect. The researchers reproduced the melittin synthetically and found it mirrored the majority of the anti-cancer effects of the honeybee venom." "It effectively shut down the signalling pathways for the reproduction of triple-negative and HER2 cancer cells."
viggity 6y ago
so does dynamite.
- Valgrim 6y ago
  It seems that the compound target specifically cancer cells: "The research showed a specific concentration of the venom killed 100 per cent of triple-negative breast cancer and HER2-enriched breast cancer cells within 60 minutes, while having minimal effects on normal cells."
  - imtringued 6y ago
    Is there a physical difference between normal and cancer cells? Are cancer cells bigger than normal cells and therefore more susceptible to venom?
hvs 6y ago
Obligatory XKCD 1217: https://xkcd.com/1217/ https://xkcd.com/1217/
- Sandman 6y ago
  Also, obligatory SMBC: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2009-08-30 https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2009-08-30
luizfzs 6y ago
I feel a lot of negativity on the comments. Of course these types of news need to be taken with a grain of salt, but I doesn't take the merit of the research away. Also, it clearly states that it's in a lab environment and with mice. These types of news help inspire people to join research/academy and it's the type of things that is always welcome. These findings were probably published somewhere in the academia, but general population doesn't see it. When you say that dynamite also kills cancer cells, I doubt you're ever going to choose dynamite as a cancer treatment in place of other treatments that obviously underwent the same lengthy process of scientific research as this study is beginning it's journey. We need to keep being realistic, as we might never discover a silver bullet for cancer, but it doesn't take any merit away from this research.
- klyrs 6y ago
  It's sad to see the lack of intellectual curiosity throughout the comments here. Some folks are bashing their strawman interpretations of the headline, others are complaining about scientists using precise language, while others frame scientists as money-grubbing. I guess this is what programmers do to make themselves feel better. I've lost 6 family members to cancer, and have two cancer survivors in my family. The survivors are still around because they were young when they got sick, and because there were many possible treatments. Hopefully, this will end up in the arsenal of potential treatments to fight cancer.
ajuc 6y ago
I wondered if beekeepers are less likely to get cancer and I found this study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/536856/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/536856/ > Carcinogenic effects of bee venom were evaluated in a mortality study of 580 occupationally exposed beekeepers. The subjects were identified through obituary notices published between 1949 and 1978 in three journals of the U.S. beekeeping industry. Death certificates of beekeepers were examined for causes of mortality, and proportionate mortality ratios were compared with those for the general U.S. population. Beekeepers had a slightly lower than expected fraction of deaths from cancer. The deficit of lung cancers in male beekeepers was significant (p less than 0.05) and may indicate that fewer beekeepers were cigarette smokers. The frequencies of other cancers did not differ significantly from expectation. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma developed in four persons, and was expected in two. Mortality from diseases other than cancer showed no unusual patterns. At least two persons died from accidents directly related to the care of beehives. Analysis of a subgroup of 377 males with major roles in the beekeeping industry showed no substantial differences in distribution of causes of death. This study of beekeepers reveals neither adverse nor beneficial effects of intense exposure to bee stings. Beekeeping suggests living in the countryside and that correlates with better air quality so lower lung cancer rates aren't that surprising.
hourislate 6y ago
Growing up my dad kept about 15 hives. A few farms over there was this old guy from Ukraine who was an amazing bee keeper (had about 50 hives of his own). One day while extracting honey, I watched him pick up a bee and force it to sting him by his thumb (wrist area) and asked why, he told me it was like medicine for arthritis. Perhaps he was onto something?
- comedowntous 6y ago
  One of the episodes of the Netflix documentary series "Unwell" gives a very interesting overview of bee sting therapy. One doctor talks about its effectiveness against arthritis, because the body releases cortisol and analgesics in response to the bee venom, which explains why people with arthritis feel better. However, the next point made is that a more straightforward way to achieve a similar result would of course be to inject the cortisol directly, instead of provoking this response by the body by injecting toxins first.
  - SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
    Yup, at its charitable best, it's chewing on willow bark instead of taking an aspirin.
- temp0826 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apitherapy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apitherapy Also interesting (and becoming a more common treatment) is the venomous secretion from a tree frog called Kambo- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kambo_cleanse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kambo_cleanse
sradman 6y ago
The paper [1] Honeybee venom and melittin suppress growth factor receptor activation in HER2-enriched and triple-negative breast cancer: > Here, we demonstrate that honeybee venom and its major component melittin potently induce cell death, particularly in the aggressive triple-negative and HER2-enriched breast cancer subtypes. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41698-020-00129-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41698-020-00129-0
rgmmm 6y ago
Sunlight kills cancer too when you focus it through a magnifying glass onto cells in a petri dish.
- grugagag 6y ago
  It kills other healthy cells as well. If you work hard enough it kills everything
  - SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
    I'm sure you'd find that it's much the same with Honey bee venom.
    - grugagag 6y ago
      I don’t know about bee venom but concentrating light rays aka burning does the job pretty well
valuearb 6y ago
Honey bee venom kills cells.
mrosett 6y ago
Randall Monroe has already covered this: https://xkcd.com/1217/ https://xkcd.com/1217/ I hope this research leads somewhere but I doubt it will
838hhh 6y ago
> Dr Duffy did not want to use words like breakthrough or cure, stressing this was just the beginning and much more research needed to be done. Whenever I see this standard disclaimer I replace it with: "Don't stop the gravy train yet!"
legerdemain 6y ago
Garlic found to kill breast cancer cells in vitro.[1] Still looking for analogous headlines with "crucifixes" and "holy water." [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21269259/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21269259/
mrkramer 6y ago
Bees are very smart their evolution must have been magnificent. I use bees' propolis[1] to treat acne and it works great. Propolis has anti-inflammatory properties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propolis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propolis I'm looking forward to learn more about honey bee venom ability to kill breast cancer cells.
- muzika 6y ago
  Propolis ethanol tincture is great for all sorts of wounds, cuts, and especially burns. Amazing stuff. Nothing works better to get burns to heal faster.
  - mindfulhack 6y ago
    Yes, many chemically simple or highly unprocessed substances from nature which are able to be harvested or produced by people who are not corrupt billion dollar chemical companies work. It's great. It's also usually better for the environment. One I often use is colloidal silver. Basic but powerful antibacterial. Helps skin cuts heal faster simply due to killing bacteria on the surface which undermine the skin's natural wound healing process. It's not magic, it's just basic science.

142 points by L_226 6y ago

0xdada 6y ago

... in mice

mikece 6y ago
Mice are used for medical testing of drugs all the time. A friend of mind who is both an MD and a PhD toxicologist tried to explain to me once why mice are ideal for testing drugs that could be used some day in humans but I sorta zoned out after five minutes (it was a social setting and I might have been drinking something if memory serves). When a study can be replicated and show statistically significant results then the study is moved to more "human like" subjects but when it comes to the way cancers and tumors work it's apparently 99.999% the same in mice as in humans.

piokoch 6y ago

Here we go again. If someone searches for a good example of journalist reporting scientific results in a very wrong why, here it is. Not understanding difference between in vivo and in vitro study, not understanding that there are multiple and easy ways to kill cancer like hammer, fire, road roller, etc. Sad to see another click-bait article since people get convinced that doctors and scientists are promising cure for cancer but are not able to deliver anything, big pharma secretly tries to stop progress and so on.

gus_massa 6y ago
At lest this part is better than most reports: > Dr Duffy did not want to use words like breakthrough or cure, stressing this was just the beginning and much more research needed to be done.
- Valgrim 6y ago
  The paper indicates that the test were done in vivo, in mice models. They also used a synthetic version of a particular compound (melittin), as an adjuvant with an existing cancer drug. They also determined how the compound affected those cells. (plasma membranes formed pores, and interferring with cancer-signalling pathways) "The study also found when the venom's main component was combined with existing chemotherapy drugs, it was extremely efficient at reducing tumour growth in mice."
LatteLazy 6y ago
Obligatory: https://xkcd.com/1217/ https://xkcd.com/1217/
mikece 6y ago
I wish I could up-vote this 1000x. Scientific literacy is beyond lacking these days, and the number of people who even know what "in vitro" or "in vivo" actually means is even more staggering. My favorite are the people/groups who tout the toxicity of products like Roundup to skin tissue in an in vitro experiment, completely overlooking the fact that the surfactant used in Roundup to make glyphosate stick to a plant so it can be absorbed causes chemical burns to the skin if you pour it on and leave it on... which, in vitro, kills skin tissue. All of which says nothing of the toxic effects to human stomach enzymes of plants which have absobed glyphosate. But hey, it's a headline on which people will click... Perhaps even more staggering is the illiteracy of people regarding the field of statistics. I have read that epidemiologists are constantly having to explain the statistics of their findings to MDs who know medicine but not statistics. If medical doctors are stumped by the language and rules of statistics I don't expect news editors or presenters to do any better with it.
- ddek 6y ago
  On ‘in vitro’ and ‘in vivo’. Maybe we’d have more success communicating this difference if we didn’t expect the layperson to know jargon? Yes, it’s two words, but they’re pretty similar so confusion is inevitable.
  - soperj 6y ago
    I asked my girlfriend to sit on my lap. When she took a shit on my lap I wasn't mad though, since yes, it's two words, but they're pretty similar so confusion is inevitable.
    - RockIslandLine 6y ago
      This kind of satire is unnecessary and unhelpful. It costs nothing to say "lab testing" instead of "in vitro". Literally the same number of syllables, zero loss of precision, and immediately understandable to a wider audience.
      - lhorie 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
trentnix 6y ago
The author is a member of the 'I F* LOVE SCIENCE GROUP' on Facebook. What more could you want?</sarcasm>
robotresearcher 6y ago
I don't think that criticism is warranted for this article. It seems quite careful to me. It says nothing about a therapy except that it's too early to talk about a therapy. It states facts and no promises are made. The only breathlessness here is that the local scientists are super excited. Headline: "Harry Perkins Institute of Medical Research study finds honeybee venom rapidly kills aggressive breast cancer cells" "Key points: - The research was published in the journal Nature Precision Oncology - It found honeybee venom was effective in killing breast cancer cells - Researchers say the discovery is exciting but there is a long way to go" Last paragraph: "Dr Duffy did not want to use words like breakthrough or cure, stressing this is just the beginning, and much more research needs to be done. "There's a long way to go in terms of how we would deliver it in the body and, you know, looking at toxicities and maximum tolerated doses before it ever went further," she said."
- hasperdi 6y ago
  If you substitute the words "honeybee venom" with "bleach", the key points you mentioned stay true. My point is, this paper doesn't have a very useful finding.
  - robotresearcher 6y ago
    If the article was about newly discovered action of bleach on cancer cells, and we didn't already believe that was a no-go for a therapy, that would also be an interesting article, yes. Time will tell if this finding turns out to be useful.

pella 6y ago

Context: "Bee venom in cancer therapy" (2011 ) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10555-011-9339-3 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10555-011-9339-3

stevespang 6y ago

The Russians knew about this >20 years ago.

jbob2000 6y ago

Netflix has a documentary series called Unwell which dissects these modern "health therapies". They have an episode on Bee Sting therapy, which the documentary does a pretty good job of explaining fairly. I recommend this if you're curious about the state of this practice. Bee venom is a mixture of more than 40 different compounds and its mixture varies a lot from bee to bee. Whatever effect you can get from these compounds would be better served by studying the compounds rather than nature's uncontrolled homogenisation of them.

Valgrim 6y ago
It seems that's exactly what the researcher has done: "She said a component of the venom called melittin is what had the killing effect. The researchers reproduced the melittin synthetically and found it mirrored the majority of the anti-cancer effects of the honeybee venom." "It effectively shut down the signalling pathways for the reproduction of triple-negative and HER2 cancer cells."

viggity 6y ago

so does dynamite.

Valgrim 6y ago
It seems that the compound target specifically cancer cells: "The research showed a specific concentration of the venom killed 100 per cent of triple-negative breast cancer and HER2-enriched breast cancer cells within 60 minutes, while having minimal effects on normal cells."
- imtringued 6y ago
  Is there a physical difference between normal and cancer cells? Are cancer cells bigger than normal cells and therefore more susceptible to venom?

hvs 6y ago

Obligatory XKCD 1217: https://xkcd.com/1217/ https://xkcd.com/1217/

Sandman 6y ago
Also, obligatory SMBC: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2009-08-30 https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2009-08-30

luizfzs 6y ago

I feel a lot of negativity on the comments. Of course these types of news need to be taken with a grain of salt, but I doesn't take the merit of the research away. Also, it clearly states that it's in a lab environment and with mice. These types of news help inspire people to join research/academy and it's the type of things that is always welcome. These findings were probably published somewhere in the academia, but general population doesn't see it. When you say that dynamite also kills cancer cells, I doubt you're ever going to choose dynamite as a cancer treatment in place of other treatments that obviously underwent the same lengthy process of scientific research as this study is beginning it's journey. We need to keep being realistic, as we might never discover a silver bullet for cancer, but it doesn't take any merit away from this research.

klyrs 6y ago
It's sad to see the lack of intellectual curiosity throughout the comments here. Some folks are bashing their strawman interpretations of the headline, others are complaining about scientists using precise language, while others frame scientists as money-grubbing. I guess this is what programmers do to make themselves feel better. I've lost 6 family members to cancer, and have two cancer survivors in my family. The survivors are still around because they were young when they got sick, and because there were many possible treatments. Hopefully, this will end up in the arsenal of potential treatments to fight cancer.

ajuc 6y ago

I wondered if beekeepers are less likely to get cancer and I found this study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/536856/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/536856/ > Carcinogenic effects of bee venom were evaluated in a mortality study of 580 occupationally exposed beekeepers. The subjects were identified through obituary notices published between 1949 and 1978 in three journals of the U.S. beekeeping industry. Death certificates of beekeepers were examined for causes of mortality, and proportionate mortality ratios were compared with those for the general U.S. population. Beekeepers had a slightly lower than expected fraction of deaths from cancer. The deficit of lung cancers in male beekeepers was significant (p less than 0.05) and may indicate that fewer beekeepers were cigarette smokers. The frequencies of other cancers did not differ significantly from expectation. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma developed in four persons, and was expected in two. Mortality from diseases other than cancer showed no unusual patterns. At least two persons died from accidents directly related to the care of beehives. Analysis of a subgroup of 377 males with major roles in the beekeeping industry showed no substantial differences in distribution of causes of death. This study of beekeepers reveals neither adverse nor beneficial effects of intense exposure to bee stings. Beekeeping suggests living in the countryside and that correlates with better air quality so lower lung cancer rates aren't that surprising.

hourislate 6y ago

Growing up my dad kept about 15 hives. A few farms over there was this old guy from Ukraine who was an amazing bee keeper (had about 50 hives of his own). One day while extracting honey, I watched him pick up a bee and force it to sting him by his thumb (wrist area) and asked why, he told me it was like medicine for arthritis. Perhaps he was onto something?

comedowntous 6y ago
One of the episodes of the Netflix documentary series "Unwell" gives a very interesting overview of bee sting therapy. One doctor talks about its effectiveness against arthritis, because the body releases cortisol and analgesics in response to the bee venom, which explains why people with arthritis feel better. However, the next point made is that a more straightforward way to achieve a similar result would of course be to inject the cortisol directly, instead of provoking this response by the body by injecting toxins first.
- SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
  Yup, at its charitable best, it's chewing on willow bark instead of taking an aspirin.
temp0826 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apitherapy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apitherapy Also interesting (and becoming a more common treatment) is the venomous secretion from a tree frog called Kambo- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kambo_cleanse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kambo_cleanse

sradman 6y ago

The paper [1] Honeybee venom and melittin suppress growth factor receptor activation in HER2-enriched and triple-negative breast cancer: > Here, we demonstrate that honeybee venom and its major component melittin potently induce cell death, particularly in the aggressive triple-negative and HER2-enriched breast cancer subtypes. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41698-020-00129-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41698-020-00129-0

rgmmm 6y ago

Sunlight kills cancer too when you focus it through a magnifying glass onto cells in a petri dish.

grugagag 6y ago
It kills other healthy cells as well. If you work hard enough it kills everything
- SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
  I'm sure you'd find that it's much the same with Honey bee venom.
  - grugagag 6y ago
    I don’t know about bee venom but concentrating light rays aka burning does the job pretty well

valuearb 6y ago

Honey bee venom kills cells.

mrosett 6y ago

Randall Monroe has already covered this: https://xkcd.com/1217/ https://xkcd.com/1217/ I hope this research leads somewhere but I doubt it will

838hhh 6y ago

> Dr Duffy did not want to use words like breakthrough or cure, stressing this was just the beginning and much more research needed to be done. Whenever I see this standard disclaimer I replace it with: "Don't stop the gravy train yet!"

legerdemain 6y ago

Garlic found to kill breast cancer cells in vitro.[1] Still looking for analogous headlines with "crucifixes" and "holy water." [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21269259/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21269259/

mrkramer 6y ago

Bees are very smart their evolution must have been magnificent. I use bees' propolis[1] to treat acne and it works great. Propolis has anti-inflammatory properties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propolis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propolis I'm looking forward to learn more about honey bee venom ability to kill breast cancer cells.

muzika 6y ago
Propolis ethanol tincture is great for all sorts of wounds, cuts, and especially burns. Amazing stuff. Nothing works better to get burns to heal faster.
- mindfulhack 6y ago
  Yes, many chemically simple or highly unprocessed substances from nature which are able to be harvested or produced by people who are not corrupt billion dollar chemical companies work. It's great. It's also usually better for the environment. One I often use is colloidal silver. Basic but powerful antibacterial. Helps skin cuts heal faster simply due to killing bacteria on the surface which undermine the skin's natural wound healing process. It's not magic, it's just basic science.