3 ms·
Yeah I do cancer immunobiology and p53, myc, mTOR whatever have been the mythical pan-cancer targets forever. There's just no way they are going to be it. Could
by dillydogg 3y ago
Yeah I do cancer immunobiology and p53, myc, mTOR whatever have been the mythical pan-cancer targets forever. There's just no way they are going to be it. Could an anti-myc be another tool in the toolbox? Sure. But it'll just go in a new version of RCHOP that extends disease free morbidity for like 3 weeks
- ramraj07 3y agoOne exception seems to have been Ras. I would have bet money that Ras would have never been a viable target but here we are now.
- voisin 3y agoSomewhat off topic: Have you read “Tripping over the Truth: The Metabolic Theory of Cancer”[0]? If so, I’d love to hear your thoughts. [0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23496164 https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23496164
- dillydogg 3y agoI haven't read this, so I'm sorry, but I cannot really comment on it. I've heard of the Warburg hypothesis but I haven't seen data that support this as the root cause of cancer. I've had my colleagues talk about this book in a way that makes me think it has a pretty good history of cancer and then selects a body of work to convince people of this hypothesis despite a number of failed clinical trials for many cancers.
- dillydogg 3y agoThat being said, I haven't read this myself, so I have to emphasize that I ought to take a look at it before passing judgment. There have been a number of grand hypotheses for cancer that haven't panned out. That doesn't mean we can't benefit from other perspectives.