Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #1  
    This looks very promising but we will have to see how it progresses. But since it is a natural means of killing cancer cells, I am more hopeful then if it (anti-cancer cell agent) were to be made by synthetic means.

    _________________________________________________________________

    Common virus kills cancer, study finds
    Tue Jun 21, 2005 4:21 PM ET

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A common virus that is harmless to people can destroy cancerous cells in the body and might be developed into a new cancer therapy, U.S. researchers said on Tuesday.

    -snip-

    "Our results suggest that adeno-associated virus type 2, which infects the majority of the population but has no known ill effects, kills multiple types of cancer cells yet has no effect on healthy cells," said Craig Meyers, a professor of microbiology and immunology at the Penn State College of Medicine in Pennsylvania.

    -snip-

    "We believe that AAV-2 recognizes that the cancer cells are abnormal and destroys them. This suggests that AAV-2 has great potential to be developed as an anti-cancer agent," Meyers said in a statement.

    -snip-

    The same thing happened with cervical, breast, prostate and squamous cell tumor cells.

    All are cancers of the epithelial cells, which include skin cells and other cells that line the insides and outsides of organs

    Read More Here
    _________________________________________________________________

    Fingers are crossed for all the folks out in the world that suffering from this terrible ailment.
  2. #2  
    Nice find, NRG. Thanks for posting it.
  3. #3  
    Huh, so the cancer itself can get 'sick' ..... interesting. I'm hopeful. After losing all male members on my father's side to cancer my odds don't look good.
  4. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by ekuzco
    Huh, so the cancer itself can get 'sick' ..... interesting. I'm hopeful. After losing all male members on my father's side to cancer my odds don't look good.
    My fingers are crossed for you! I lost both my parents to cancer, both of them @ ages of 57. So I am right there with you my chances aren't so great either from the looks of things.
  5. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by Tribalenvy
    Nice find, NRG. Thanks for posting it.
    No prob I always think an article of this magnitude deserves to be posted, and some that aren't so.
  6. #6  
    Interesting stuff. I work with AAV at my job, it looks to be a very promising tool when used in gene therapy.

    But bear in mind that there are a plethora of different types of cancers and many different initiators of oncogenesis. AAV has a benefit over other types of viral vectors in that it doesn't (usually) cause systemic or localized toxicity, but administration and localization of the virus is definitely something that needs to be worked out; the article only described how cells in culture were treated. After having worked in a cancer clinic for a number of years, I can only hope this will turn into a useful therapy....
  7. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by Sherv
    Interesting stuff. I work with AAV at my job, it looks to be a very promising tool when used in gene therapy.

    But bear in mind that there are a plethora of different types of cancers and many different initiators of oncogenesis. AAV has a benefit over other types of viral vectors in that it doesn't (usually) cause systemic or localized toxicity, but administration and localization of the virus is definitely something that needs to be worked out; the article only described how cells in culture were treated. After having worked in a cancer clinic for a number of years, I can only hope this will turn into a useful therapy....
    Now would we have to worry about mutation? I would figure we would not have to worry about mutation because we are not attacking this virus, so it has no need to mutate. Also the article states that AAV-2 needs another virus present to do it's work, I wonder what that would be? I also had a question as far as chemo goes. I was wondering why they do not take a large needle and administer chem directly to the cancer cluster? I know there are some cancer cells floating around the body sometimes late in the game so general (whole-body) chemo is a alright answer for clearing out the blood. But when the cancer is caught early why not apply chemo locally (direct targeting)? And one more question, what has become of RF ablation? I heard alot of noise about it a while ago but nothing new as of yet.
  8. #8  
    There oughtn't be any need to worry about mutation; the therapy, injecting fully-formed viruses containing specific DNA, avoids that. It shouldn't take too long to kill the malignant cells after the viral DNA has infected them, so mutation won't be an issue. Just to state things clearly, there's never really a "need" to mutate, it's (usually) a natural phenomenon that happens to be a force of micro- and macro-evolution. Due to its very nature, HIV undergoes a tremendously high number of mutations whereas AAV2 and its variants will not. AAV can undergo site-specific integration into the human genome, which makes it a fantastic candidate for gene therapy, and I suppose this makes it somewhat suceptible to mutations in the long run....

    AAV = Adeno-Associated Virus, and it needs the requisite adenovirus to infect cells. It's truly a fascinating virus....AAV has never been shown to induce disease, and it actually has a sort-of symbiotic relationship in humans. I can't find the exact information right now, but I remember reading that it is believed that AAV exists as a means to treat/kill/etc cells which are infected by harmful adenoviruses, which I find to be utterly amazing. As such, one can inject AAV along with a (harmless) helper virus in order for it to infect cells.

    I'm not too familiar with the mechanics of chemotherapy, but I do believe it's a rather last-resortish treatment, right? It's incredibly taxing on the body, so localization of chemo administration would be desirable...maybe some cancer clusters are just too difficult to target properly, or maybe the dose needed to kill the cells would be too concentrate to inject in a specific area and can cause damage to the non-cancerous cells too? Physical removal of the tumor is usually the ideal route, but that leaves the potential for residual cells that were missed...


    n.b. I haven't listed any of my references, but if anyone wants I can provide the proper literature for this information. In other words, don't sue me!
  9. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by Sherv
    There oughtn't be any need to worry about mutation; the therapy, injecting fully-formed viruses containing specific DNA, avoids that. It shouldn't take too long to kill the malignant cells after the viral DNA has infected them, so mutation won't be an issue. Just to state things clearly, there's never really a "need" to mutate, it's (usually) a natural phenomenon that happens to be a force of micro- and macro-evolution. Due to its very nature, HIV undergoes a tremendously high number of mutations whereas AAV2 and its variants will not. AAV can undergo site-specific integration into the human genome, which makes it a fantastic candidate for gene therapy, and I suppose this makes it somewhat suceptible to mutations in the long run....

    AAV = Adeno-Associated Virus, and it needs the requisite adenovirus to infect cells. It's truly a fascinating virus....AAV has never been shown to induce disease, and it actually has a sort-of symbiotic relationship in humans. I can't find the exact information right now, but I remember reading that it is believed that AAV exists as a means to treat/kill/etc cells which are infected by harmful adenoviruses, which I find to be utterly amazing. As such, one can inject AAV along with a (harmless) helper virus in order for it to infect cells.

    I'm not too familiar with the mechanics of chemotherapy, but I do believe it's a rather last-resortish treatment, right? It's incredibly taxing on the body, so localization of chemo administration would be desirable...maybe some cancer clusters are just too difficult to target properly, or maybe the dose needed to kill the cells would be too concentrate to inject in a specific area and can cause damage to the non-cancerous cells too? Physical removal of the tumor is usually the ideal route, but that leaves the potential for residual cells that were missed...


    n.b. I haven't listed any of my references, but if anyone wants I can provide the proper literature for this information. In other words, don't sue me!
    Look at the BIG BRAIN on Sherv!

    Really though thanks for the info. You helped me understand this virus a little more. And yes chemo is a last resort but all too often it is the only route.

Posting Permissions