[HN Gopher] Light-induced whole-molecule vibration can rupture m...
___________________________________________________________________
Light-induced whole-molecule vibration can rupture melanoma cells'
membrane
Author : leothekim
Score : 140 points
Date : 2023-12-27 06:46 UTC (16 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (news.rice.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (news.rice.edu)
| Austizzle wrote:
| The real question is always "but how good is it at killing non-
| cancer cells?" A bullet fired from a gun would be great at
| killing cancer cells too.
|
| Although in this case it seems like it's just an alternative to
| surgery, rather than a cancer cure? Just a way of vibrating cells
| in a certain location to death?
|
| Does anybody who actually understands medicine know if this is a
| great breakthrough or not?
| H8crilA wrote:
| Every single cancer treatment is about destroying cancer cells.
| Given the clickbait level of the headline it's clear that it is
| not worth clicking.
| inkcapmushroom wrote:
| >Given the clickbait level of the headline
|
| That is not a clickbait headline, it's very descriptive of
| the contents of the article. Clickbait would be like "Crazy
| new cancer cure will literally punch cancer cells to death!
| You won't believe it!"
| H8crilA wrote:
| Title was changed.
| pvaldes wrote:
| If I understood it correctly, the "hammers" seek (or are
| coupled with a system that attach mainly to) the cancer cells,
| so they destroy it later. Looks like a clever system.
| _nalply wrote:
| These chemicals were used to detect cancer cells by coloring
| them. Now it seems that they don't only color specifically, but
| with the help of infrared light they can even destroy.
|
| As far as I know these coloring chemicals are very specific for
| cancer types. This means perhaps they are a cure but not for
| all cancer types. Or the chemicals are poisonous and typically
| only used on biopsies. Or they are not specific enough. I don't
| know. We will see whether it is THE miraculous cure. I am
| afraid not, but let's hope.
|
| EDIT: let's cite:
|
| > Aminocyanine molecules are already used in bioimaging as
| synthetic dyes. Commonly used in low doses to detect cancer,
| they stay stable in water and are very good at attaching
| themselves to the outside of cells.
| benjijay wrote:
| I am not a biologist but I've known a few in my time;
|
| It is highly unlikely there will ever be a singular "cure for
| cancer" as cancer is a bit of a blanket term given to multiple
| diseases, however this is a seemingly reasonably good
| breakthrough in treatment - being able to destroy cancerous
| cells without exposing the patient to further harm via targeted
| radiation or harsh chemo drugs (basically targeted poisoning)
| feels like a win.
|
| If we can break the cells down and let the body's immune system
| take care of the remnants instead of having to slice someone
| open, huge win!
| once_inc wrote:
| > It is highly unlikely there will ever be a singular "cure
| for cancer" as cancer is a bit of a blanket term given to
| multiple diseases,
|
| "It doesn't make sense to say 'cure for cancer.' Cancer is a
| wide variety of disorders with different manifestations and
| etiology. It makes as much sense as saying 'a cure for
| virus'."
|
| > https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-11-21
| unsupp0rted wrote:
| An enhanced immune system would functionally be a "cure for
| virus".
|
| It's conceivable we could find a technique that targets and
| ruptures any cancer cell, functionally becoming a "cure for
| cancer".
| stvltvs wrote:
| Which could increase the risk for autoimmune disease.
| Current immunotherapy treatments for cancer that I'm
| aware of have to be carefully monitored so they don't
| kill the patient.
| dghughes wrote:
| Or better yet find out how to prevent cancers since it's
| better to not be sick than to treat you once you are sick.
|
| Things like the HPV vaccine which in my province saw a 90%
| drop in just a few years. I think everyone should get it no
| questions asked which maybe they don't anymore?
|
| The Hepatitis B vaccine too since having the disease is a
| cause of liver cancer.
|
| But if all else fails it's also good to have a tools to try
| to get rid of cancers.
| thehappypm wrote:
| HPV is a unique one because it's essentially a contagious
| cancer, and you're not vaccinating against cancer, you're
| vaccinating against the carrier (HPV). A really interesting
| cancer treatment that's very promising is customized
| vaccines that specifically target cancer cells for each
| individual's cancer!
| kulahan wrote:
| Preventing cancer seems like a fool's based on my
| understanding of the disease. You have cancerous cells in
| your body every single day. Your immune system kills them
| all off. It's like saying you want to prevent all bacteria
| from entering your body. It's just not realistic (at least,
| not right now).
| inglor_cz wrote:
| Maybe the OP meant "prevention" in the sense of
| "improving your immune system so much that cancer never
| manifests as a disease".
| foobiekr wrote:
| HPV causes cancer. The prevention here is literal - by
| preventing infection from the oncogenic HPV variants
| there is no cancer.
| foobiekr wrote:
| Replying to a post noting a 90% reduction in cancer
| thanks to the HPV vaccine with "preventing cancer seems
| like a fool's errand" is pretty amazing. Would you care
| to expand on that?
| inglor_cz wrote:
| Whales are fairly resistant to cancers (and so are other
| mammals, such as bats or naked mole rats), at least
| compared to humans.
|
| Possibly, we may one day run DNA modifications on ourselves
| to copy whale/bat/naked mole rat genes into our cells in
| order to acquire similar protection.
|
| Sounds wild, but it once sounded wild to infect yourself
| with a cowpox pus in order to prevent human smallpox.
| onetimeuse92304 wrote:
| I am of more positive thinking here. I think our problems
| with cancer are due to misunderstanding what cancer is in the
| first place.
|
| Here, Thomas Seyfried can explain this much better than I
| ever could: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KusaU2taxow
|
| I think once we know where cancer comes from we can be much
| more effective at preventing it in the first place (proper
| diet) and treating it after the fact. With the current
| progress I think at some point we should be able to prevent
| pretty much close to all deaths from cancer.
|
| Obviously, people will always be dying of something so
| preventing a cancer will only mean we will have other
| challenges to face.
| benjijay wrote:
| It's been a few years since I was as deep into this realm
| so I might be slightly off but;
|
| Cancers and Tumors mostly happen as a result of some errant
| mutation - there are limitless causes for such things and
| the best diet in the world can't save you from random
| biological chance or solar radiation. Everything comes with
| a risk and 98 times out of 100 your own defences will see
| this mutation happen and shut it down before it gets too
| far
|
| A 100% effective 'prevention' for cancer would basically be
| a souped-up immune system to the point that we basically
| never get meaningfully sick, and probably live another
| 30-50 years as a result (most cases of "died of old age"
| are more like "had 7 different minor cancers which
| overwhelmed the body's systems")
| chefandy wrote:
| Yeah-- it's obviously worth interrogating how our
| environments affect our cancer risk, but considering that
| the disease was named by Hippocrates in the 300s BCE, it
| seems pretty unlikely that any single avoidable
| environmental factor could be "the cause," or any single
| factor could be "the mechanism."
| benjijay wrote:
| Certainly there are myriad 'causes', and likely at least
| a few mechanisms if you get into specifics, but as a
| general rule a cancerous tumour is a group of cells that
| multiply faster than they die (or don't die at all), and
| consume resources without 'giving back' to the organ in
| which they reside - effectively the "I have outlived my
| designated usefulness" switch gets commented out and
| replaced with "multiply even harder, forever"
| stvltvs wrote:
| A non-specific treatment that revs up the immune system
| increases the risk of autoimmune disease. It would have
| to be specific to the cancer AFAIK, so more of a
| treatment for an existing cancer than a preventative
| measure.
| b4ke wrote:
| Lies. Lies about the nature of shared-conception. The
| universe is a representation of the collective will, and
| lies obfuscate that in ways that are consequential.
| b4ke wrote:
| It's unfortunate that the intellectual curiosity of
| religious leaders led to science, as they are probably
| also responsible for the problems it seeks to solve.
| mo_42 wrote:
| I had the same question when reading this. They use the light
| only at places where cancerous cells were found plus some
| safety margin I guess.
|
| In that sense it's an alternative to surgery.
| adamredwoods wrote:
| Essentially correct. They use near-infra red light, which can
| only penetrate about 3cm of skin, so this is not a complete
| replacement to surgery.
|
| New modern chemotherapy (anti-body drug conjugates) are also
| similar to how it "adheres" to cancer cells, by binding to
| specific cell expression. It's not re-inventing this
| technology, just finding a new way to leverage it. The drug
| will also bind to normal cells, but by directing light to a
| specific area the goal is to minimize damage and side
| effects.
| sungam wrote:
| It is a long way off clinical application but could potentially
| be useful for treatment of "in transit" metastases - e.g.
| multiple metastases spreading from a distal site on a limb and
| growing on the skin. At the moment these are usually removed
| surgically or treated with electrochemotherapy. Unlikely to
| replace conventional treatments such as immunotherapy
| (checkpoint inhibitors), targeted inhibitors (BRAF/MEK) or
| emerging treatments such as personalised mRNA vaccines.
|
| (Lead clinician for the melanoma multidisciplinary team at a
| major teaching hospital in London for what it's worth)
| onetimeuse92304 wrote:
| We are currently using radiation therapy which focuses gamma
| rays on a piece of tissue with cancer cells to kill it.
|
| If you can do the same but instead of gamma rays use infrared,
| even if it kills indiscriminately, that should still be a net
| positive, don't you think?
|
| And the main benefit here is that you can get these molecules
| into specific cells which in theory should allow killing cells
| based on some chemical characteristic.
| ta988 wrote:
| https://xkcd.com/1217/
| mcint wrote:
| Even if this just becomes chemotherapy but locally activated by
| near-infrared light, that would be great.
|
| It means, at worst, don't go outside or be in bright sun-lit
| spaces, but also, we can shine a flashlight on where the cancer
| is to kill it. Even if it weren't very selective (which could
| be adjusted with other targeting molecules), light-trigged
| theraputics are easy to understand the propagation of.
| hasoleju wrote:
| > Near-infrared light can go as deep as 10 centimeters (~ 4
| inches) into the human body.
|
| This attribute of the infrared light is key to treating cancer
| anywhere in the human body with this method. As long as the
| patient is not obese, I assume 10 centimeters of penetration
| depth are enough to reach any part of the body.
|
| Penetration depth and the precision of the desired effect is
| something that is very important in radiation therapy as well.
| With radiation therapy you basically shoot small particles at the
| cancer cells but you also damage surroundings if you don't aim
| precisely enough. Dependig on the depth of the cancer cells
| inside the body, different particles are used. The amount of
| damage the particles deal depends on physical effects. Photons
| deal most of the damage on the surface. More heavy particles like
| alpha particles deal most of the damage once they are slowed down
| inside the body. (See Bragg peak
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bragg_peak ).
| stvltvs wrote:
| > as deep as
|
| I wonder if this is affected by tissue types, e.g. bone.
| tsavo wrote:
| Near Infrared (NIR) is affected by tissue type. It's light,
| different densities of a substance, along with what that
| substance may be comprised, will influence the rate of
| absorption of the light by a substance and reduction in light
| penetration.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| With laparoscopy, you can penetrate patients of all sizes with
| instruments, and with minimal danger.
| adamredwoods wrote:
| previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38701381
| all2 wrote:
| I suppose I should mention the much maligned Royal Raymond Rife
| who stumbled onto this same phenomena over a century ago.
| joshuahaglund wrote:
| How many times have we found a new medical use for an existing
| dye?
|
| Prontosil was a pre-penicillin antibacterial based on azo dyes
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prontosil#History
|
| Brilliant blue, a food coloring, was found to help repair spinal
| injuries https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6719612/
| foobiekr wrote:
| The blue dye seems to have gone nowhere since the initial
| study: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coomassie_brilliant_blue
| adonovan wrote:
| And the first antibiotic was inspired by the observation that
| dye stuck to bacteria better than other things! See
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ehrlich
| xkcd-sucks wrote:
| > whole-molecule vibration Heating it up
|
| > Light-induced with IR light (IR penetrates tissue much better
| than visible/UV and it's cheaper than microwaves/RF)
|
| > can rupture melanoma cells' membrane you can cook cancer to
| death, surprise. The big deal is not cooking everything else,
| ~~here accomplished with a targeted sensitizer dye that localizes
| to just those cells~~ Nope, no targeting at all. The advance here
| is just a new class of IR absorbing dyes that have some cool
| chemical properties that lend themselves particularly well to
| disrupting lipid membranes. The reason it's billed as a cancer
| treatment is because the authors get funding from NIH not NSF,
| more or less
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-12-27 23:01 UTC)