Scientists Destroy 99% of Cancer Cells in The Lab Using Vibrating Molecules

Comments

• assassinatedbyCIA@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I can destroy 99% pf cancer cells in a lab using a hammer. The important part is whether you can do the same in a person without killing them.

  source

  • RobotToaster@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Image

    source

    • medicsofanarchy@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Or fire.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • 21Cabbage@lemmynsfw.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      First thing that came to mind.

      source
    • DigitalNirvana@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      This paper refers to neither a common drug, nor vitamin. And if you’d read the paper, which is still in ‘prepublication’, you may have noticed that it refers to a novel process. Patients are generally, in my clinical experience averse to being placed in fires AND to being shot, even therapeutically. So I have to ask, is your purpose to promote XKCD? A Nobel pursuit, as far as I can tell. Or to sow discord in a scientific discussion? Which is annoying at best.

      source
  • mihies@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    The test was done on mice where half of them ended cancer free and I assume survived.

    source

    • assassinatedbyCIA@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      No lab mice survive the lab unfortunately.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    You’d think that it would be a might difficult getting a hammer into a body, but I salute you.

    source

    • Twinklebreeze@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      You don’t need to. Just keep hammering away until you reach the cancer. Phase II trials start soon.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • NounsAndWords@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I would argue it is actually quite easy to get a hammer into a body. Precision and accuracy are the larger concerns.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • RobotToaster@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      You won’t get it in there with that attitude.

      source
    • Neato@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Attachment: media.kbin.social ↗

      source
  • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    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.

    Looks like an interesting choice, since they were already made to attach to cancer cells.

    They work like an existing method, but with infrared light vs visible, which penetrates deeper into the body.

    source
  • MustrumR@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    The thing about the used molecules is that they attach to the cancer more than other cells.

    Apart from that you can concentrate the infrared light at the main clusters.

    I'd say it is an improvement. Even if only the main clusters are destroyed it's noninvasive way to reduce the chance of mutation (less cancer cells means less chances for a mutation to gain chemo resistance).

    source

    • HubertManne@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I agree although the term used sounds like something stan lee coined.

      source
  • Ainiriand@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Have you read the article?

    source

    • assassinatedbyCIA@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Yeah I’ve read the article and I’ve gone and had a little look at the scientific paper as well. The paper only mentions the effect of the molecule on cancer cells and does not mention what effect it has or may have on normal tissue. Interestingly for their mice model they delivered the drug intratumourally. To me this suggests that the drug is not selectively taken up by the tumour cells and they you need to get around this by limiting the delivery of the drug to the site of the cancer. This is just my speculation though. However, if true it would have implications on the practicality of using this method as a cancer therapy.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • Loulou@lemmy.mindoki.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Well, killing 99% of cancer cells is quite useless, the 1% left will now thrive and if they survived because they were different (and not just luckily escaping the treatment) you now have 100% of cancer cells you can’t treat anymore.

    Better case, the 1% “lucky” cancer cells just re-invade.

    source

    • Honytawk@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      It could extend the life of the patient with a few years.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • assassinatedbyCIA@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Best case scenario is that your immune system takes care of the final 1%. Worse case scenario is exactly as you described and you get mets that are resistant to therapy.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• JadenSmith@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Does this mean playing competitive chess could prevent cancer??

  source
• Monument@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  A chemical that can’t target cancer cells can be triggered to vibrate in such a way that it destroys cell membranes by a light source that attenuates by about 90% over 1mm of flesh (down to 1% of the original strength at 2mm).

  If they could target just cancer cells, it would work for some skin cancers.
  Infrared and near infrared transmit a good amount of heat. I imagine that even if they figure out the targeting issue, unless the light to vibration process is highly efficient, the point at which the light source is just burning the patient’s flesh will be reached long before there’s anything but a limited use case.

  I guess the mechanism is good to know about, but it’s unlikely to turn into a cure for cancer.

  source
• AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  99% of non-cancerous cells were also destroyed.

  source

  • mihies@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I don't get this comment at all. Wat?

    source

    • BestBouclettes@jlai.lu ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Killing cancer cells is easy enough, the hard part is only killing cancerous cells

      source
    • Konstant@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      He’s saying it destroys all cells, cancerous and non-cancerous. Don’t know if it’s true, haven’t read the article.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  i asked this in another thread, how do they get the novel molecule to attach to only cancer cells. apparently they havent gotten that far yet.

  source

  • onlinepersona@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    All I found was this from the article

    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.

    Not sure if just attached to cancer cells or other cells too.

    CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

    source
  • emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Cancer cells divide faster than other cells, meaning they have some structural differences. Most drugs (not sure about this one) exploit this difference.

    source
• RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  “Inject the Jiggler.”

  source
• NatakuNox@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Doesn’t a microwave vibrate molecules?

  source

  • Lazz45@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Yes, in a sense. It technically isn’t vibrating them, but rapidly spinning them due to the constantly changing magnetic field (produced by the magnetron).

    Since water has a dipole moment (one side of the molecule experiences a slight positive charge, while one side experiences a slight negative charge) it will react to changes in an electric field just like a magnet would

    source
• iAvicenna@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  That %1 is gonna be a bitch

  source
• EdibleFriend@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  So we’re back to things like what led to the original vibrators.

  source

  • BoastfulDaedra@lemmynsfw.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    You may be onto something there. Near-infrared activated chemical vibrators… how fast do these jiggle again?

    source