[Democracy]

(Original post by T-Toe)
I'm doing a research project and I'm coming up with ways of how cancer cell grow could be reduced.

Killing cancer cells in vitro is easy. Virkon does the job. Killing cancer cells in vivo without harming healthy cells is what poses a problem.

Like how prokaryotes have repressors ingrained in their genome e.g lacI which prevents the encoding of lac genes. Ingrain a human repressor into the human genome preventing the production of oncogenic transcription factors?

Well?

Well humans already do have tumour suppressors (p53, PTEN, etc). "Reactivating" these is the problem however. You won't be able to do it anytime soon though, according to one of my old profs the people who do will be instant Nobel prize winners.

Monoclonal antibodies e.g. bevacizumab, trastuzumab etc can be effective, though are unfortunately also very expensive. That Bearded Man also makes a good point by bringing up the role of telomerase and how that could be further explored.

I'd also look into CDK inhibitors, which is something of an emerging therapy.

[Jake22]

(Original post by T-Toe)
What do you mean my critical evaluation and interpretation? As in, explaining my results?

Exactly. If people have done this stuff before and have produced results, you can interpret them - you say what the results imply. Critical evaluation means evaluating the pros and cons of an idea - i.e. you say why it doesn't (or might not) work rather than just commenting on the positive parts.

(Original post by T-Toe)
I've mentioned inhibitors, oncegenic AP-1 and lac repressors. I'm now (very vaguely) suggesting possible methods of cancer treatment. I don't know if my methods are new or not. I'm assuming they're not.

My point is that you should search the relevant literature to find out whether it is new or not. No point in just speculating - go and look it up. Then, if and when you find anything, you mention the results people already have and add your interpretation and opinions.

[I<3LAMP]

Talk of cancer research brings out the crazies, the herbalists and those who think chugging tumeric powder AFTER chemo, radio, surgery is the cure for their cancer (from a DM article).

If you have good evidence to show inhibiting transcription factors can kill cancer cells then you should write about it. Just make sure you properly reference, use proper journals/textbook evidence and try and have a few opinions on the future of these interventions and the pros and cons.

I remember writing on telomeres and telomerase back when I was a Biomed student but in first year they don't expect you to have brilliant new ideas, they want you to research proper literature, analyse data and draw conclusions.

[AspiringGenius]

(Original post by susuthemusu)
although i strongly disagree with most western medicine, and believe cancer can be fairly easily cured/treated.
to your question, i appreciate it can theoretically work but there are way to many variables not taken into account

bring on the negs people!!!

There's mo such thing as western medicine, there's on
Y modern medicine and the pseudo-medicine, eg, shaman and witchdoctor ****.

[laura130490]

Have you spoken to your lecturer about this? I don't mean this in a patronising way as it's always good to get as many opinions as possible, but I think you'd be much better off speaking to someone who has specialist knowledge in this area, like a cancer biology lecturer. When I did my undergrad final year project I was always emailing and speaking to my project tutor, unfortunately my project turned out to be pretty rubbish because the hospitals wouldn't give me blood samples, but that's another story.

[I<3LAMP]

(Original post by Jake22)
Exactly. If people have done this stuff before and have produced results, you can interpret them - you say what the results imply. Critical evaluation means evaluating the pros and cons of an idea - i.e. you say why it doesn't (or might not) work rather than just commenting on the positive parts.




My point is that you should search the relevant literature to find out whether it is new or not. No point in just speculating - go and look it up. Then, if and when you find anything, you mention the results people already have and add your interpretation and opinions.

Definitely. Writing these essays test your ability to research, extract and analyse data and being able to interpret it and use it to see if it supports the aim for your essay.

Read, read, read, don't just guess and speculate!

[T-Toe]

(Original post by Democracy)
Killing cancer cells in vitro is easy. Virkon does the job. Killing cancer cells in vivo without harming healthy cells is what poses a problem.



Well humans already do have tumour suppressors (p53, PTEN, etc). "Reactivating" these is the problem however. You won't be able to do it anytime soon though, according to one of my old profs the people who do will be instant Nobel prize winners.

Monoclonal antibodies e.g. bevacizumab, trastuzumab etc can be effective, though are unfortunately also very expensive. That Bearded Man also makes a good point by bringing up the role of telomerase and how that could be further explored.

I'd also look into CDK inhibitors, which is something of an emerging therapy.

I don't want to drift off topic. My research project is solely on transcription factors. AP-1 to be exact.

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by T-Toe)
I'm doing a research project and I'm coming up with ways of how cancer cell grow could be reduced.

Monitoring the activity of transcription factors and decipher which ones are oncogenic. Then via a series of trial and errors use various compounds which could be possible inhibitors. These inhibitors may have side effects so proper research is required.

Like how prokaryotes have repressors ingrained in their genome e.g lacI which prevents the encoding of lac genes. Ingrain a human repressor into the human genome preventing the production of oncogenic transcription factors?

Well?

You want to think about all the hallmarks of tumor growth.

Immortality (no telomere length restriction: look at the Hayflick Limit)
Restriction of apoptosis (many paths for apoptosis exist)
Angiogenesis (blood vessel growth)
Incorrect response to growth factors (RAS pathway? Consider both inhibitory and excitatory signals)
Metastatic potential

Each of these has possible applications as both a cause and a treatment for tumour cells. I don't think your TF idea is useful-a TF might be oncogenic but it's probably still necessary for cell function. And once the tumor is there, it's unlikely to act as a treatment as much as a preventative measure. I would focus on angiogenesis and metastasis - tumors cannot grow past a small size if they cannot generate their own blood supply, because diffusion is limited, and primary tumors are rarely the ones that cause the most problems in cancer.

[OSharp]

treatments already exist which inhibit transcription factors or the co factors which activate them.

I think somone already mentioned ER alpha and how it is inhibited by tamoxifen.

So yes its theoretically possible but you would need to find an inhibitor for each Transcription factor.

unless i missed the point of the question

[Chief Wiggum]

(Original post by T-Toe)
What do you mean by critical evaluation and interpretation? As in, explaining my results?

I've mentioned inhibitors, oncegenic AP-1 and lac repressors. I'm now (very vaguely) suggesting possible methods of cancer treatment. I don't know if my methods are new or not. I'm assuming they're not.

I don't know about transcription factors in particular, but inhibiting oncogenic molecules is a strategy used.

eg:

1. Gleevec (used in chronic myeloid leukaemia)
2. Herceptin (monoclonal antibody against an EGF receptor)
3. Avastin (monoclonal antibody to VEGF)
4. Panitumumab (monoclonal antibody to EGF receptor)

[Danielle89]

I think they've thought of these sorts of things before, but because it's so difficult to target specific parts of the gene, there's too much of a risk of the drug targetting the wrong bit and wreaking havoc with the rest of your system i.e. turning off genes for certain necessary enzymes

[gateshipone]

(Original post by susuthemusu)
china has the second highest life expectancy despite it being classified as a developing country a few years ago.

So? That could be down to many factors like diet and exercise and not be related to medicine in any way. You can't just make a claim and link it to homoeopathy because it fits your views, you have to back it up, you know, like modern medicine does!

the surgical equipment being used today was used in china and india 150 years ago roughly.

Again, so? Surgical equipment isn't that complex and if given to a British/Western doctor 200 years ago, he'd probably be able to figure out what most of it does as it would look similar to what he is using anyway. The materials may have changed, but the basic instruments are pretty similar.

[vnupe]

As we know there are proto-oncogenes within the human genome, which turn on at indiscriminate times, in conjunction with outside factors, which my knowledge remain a mystery as to why this occurs in some but not in others when subjected to the exact same stimuli...
therefore my idea wold be to somehow inhibit the production of the activity of these genes through supression of some kind, or perhaps through some sort of de-differentation... not withstanding issues such as do these genes serve dual purposes, and by turning off these genes are we then suceptible to greater harm?

[T-Toe]

(Original post by Democracy)
Killing cancer cells in vitro is easy. Virkon does the job. Killing cancer cells in vivo without harming healthy cells is what poses a problem.



Well humans already do have tumour suppressors (p53, PTEN, etc). "Reactivating" these is the problem however. You won't be able to do it anytime soon though, according to one of my old profs the people who do will be instant Nobel prize winners.

Monoclonal antibodies e.g. bevacizumab, trastuzumab etc can be effective, though are unfortunately also very expensive. That Bearded Man also makes a good point by bringing up the role of telomerase and how that could be further explored.

I'd also look into CDK inhibitors, which is something of an emerging therapy.

Decomcracy I need your help.

In my experiment E.coli was transformed by the implementation of a plasmid which contained lac operon, some antibiotic resistant genes as well as the gene which encodes AP-1.

I'm trying to relate the the lac operon gene with a lac gene repressor which if added, would prevent the production of AP-1. I'm now trying to relate that with human biology. I know AP-1 can cause cancer. So if a repressor that stops the formation of a oncogenic transcription factor is added to the human genome it may help prevent the formation of cancers formed by transcription factors.

Are there known repressors already in the body which stop the formation of oncogenic transcription factors?

[T-Toe]

(Original post by Danielle89)
I think they've thought of these sorts of things before, but because it's so difficult to target specific parts of the gene, there's too much of a risk of the drug targetting the wrong bit and wreaking havoc with the rest of your system i.e. turning off genes for certain necessary enzymes

So, should I just scrap these ideas?

[susuthemusu]

(Original post by gateshipone)
So? That could be down to many factors like diet and exercise and not be related to medicine in any way. You can't just make a claim and link it to homoeopathy because it fits your views, you have to back it up, you know, like modern medicine does!



Again, so? Surgical equipment isn't that complex and if given to a British/Western doctor 200 years ago, he'd probably be able to figure out what most of it does as it would look similar to what he is using anyway. The materials may have changed, but the basic instruments are pretty similar.

yes but instead of being a dip**** about it seeing you know very little about it, its not wise to beso critical. there is some link, it may not be the only one ofcourse, but it is a significant one.

[T-Toe]

(Original post by I<3LAMP)
Definitely. Writing these essays test your ability to research, extract and analyse data and being able to interpret it and use it to see if it supports the aim for your essay.

Read, read, read, don't just guess and speculate!

What if you cannot find anything. What then? Could you not just mention how the experiment could be done?

[HCubed]

(Original post by susuthemusu)
if theres something you cannot comprehend, it doesnt make it illogical. china has the second highest life expectancy despite it being classified as a developing country a few years ago. the highest cancer rates are all mainly in the west, and the surgical equipment being used today was used in china and india 150 years ago roughly.
you hardly know anything about the practise apart from "herbs" which is the least significant method, so you are no position to judge. if every person had your attitude its no wonder why modern medicine has only managed to get so far.

China actually has very high rates of some cancers (stomach, head, neck, lung) and low rates of others (breast, prostate, ovarian). This is nothing to do with the medical treatment being superior in China, and everything to do with diet and lifestyle factors. I suggest you know very little about western medicine - did they have Cyberknife 150 years ago in China?

[Joinedup]

(Original post by T-Toe)
What do you mean by critical evaluation and interpretation? As in, explaining my results?

I've mentioned inhibitors, oncegenic AP-1 and lac repressors. I'm now (very vaguely) suggesting possible methods of cancer treatment. I don't know if my methods are new or not. I'm assuming they're not.

what they're looking for in first year is mainly being able to find out what other people think and being able to accurately summarise and reference it properly.
Find out if someone has had a similar thought to yours and reference it. Probably look at the primary research into these transcription factors to see if the authors mentioned anything similar... Then check for more recent publications which reference the earlier research.

[T-Toe]

(Original post by Hypocrism)
You want to think about all the hallmarks of tumor growth.

Immortality (no telomere length restriction: look at the Hayflick Limit)
Restriction of apoptosis (many paths for apoptosis exist)
Angiogenesis (blood vessel growth)
Incorrect response to growth factors (RAS pathway? Consider both inhibitory and excitatory signals)
Metastatic potential

Each of these has possible applications as both a cause and a treatment for tumour cells. I don't think your TF idea is useful-a TF might be oncogenic but it's probably still necessary for cell function. And once the tumor is there, it's unlikely to act as a treatment as much as a preventative measure. I would focus on angiogenesis and metastasis - tumors cannot grow past a small size if they cannot generate their own blood supply, because diffusion is limited, and primary tumors are rarely the ones that cause the most problems in cancer.

How do I mention all this and relate it back to transcription factors?