Ask a cancer biologist anything

In my department (R&D) we have biostatisticians to handle all of the heavy lifting. They give me the data to present to our VPs in easily digestible figures. Admittedly, complex stats isn't my forte.

How do people actually die of cancer?

How do I succeed as a researcher? I am doing a cell-model Master's project and I'm studying for the GRE subject test. Any tips for succeeding in this field?

what do you mean, increasing rate?..

To what degree do you think pharma research and bio research in general can be automated and carried out by robots like in this thing:

wired.com/2016/08/inside-robot-run-genetics-lab-tomorrow-just-watch-step/

How are you going to put life into cells exhausted of life?

Really depends what it is. I'll give you an example.

>Primary cancer cell in breast
>Develops it's own blood supply (angiogenesis)
>Growing so fast, needs to move to a more friendly environment
>Single cancer cell escapes through new blood (or lymph) vessel
>Many factors such as chemokines, growth factors, etc, direct it to the liver
>Secondary site (metastasis) begins to proliferate
>Grows so large to compromise liver function
>Patient dies

This is a hugely oversimplified example. But typically, the primary tumor will not kill you (if it's in the breast, skin, prostate, etc) but when it moves to that secondary location (such as bone, liver, brain) is when trouble sets in. You can live without the breast tissue but when your bones are riddled with cancer, it's all over.

> immuno-oncology is the future of cancer treatment. Whether it's DNA vaccines

The dude I worked for this summer has literally been doing this shit since the 90s and nobody knows about him.

Google Dr. Robert Elliott from Baton Rouge, he has his own vaccine for breast cancer.

Get your name on as many papers as possible, rotate through tons of labs, pick up marketable skills, have many cool (or one kickass) projects to hang your hat on

Poor human behavior will lead to poor human outcomes.

High throughput screening is already accomplishing 1000x the amount of work that a person-based work flow could accomodate. I'm all for it.

Stem cells. But that is a conversation for a totally different thread.

Do you have any suspicions about whether medical professionals are on the right track to a cure for cancer in general? (Not just one or two specific types, but the whole problem of developing malignant tumors). Does this question even make sense to ask?

It's definitely a good question. There are tens of thousands (maybe more) medical professionals, researchers, and physicians across the world who've dedicated their lives to cancer research. Some of them are so focused, pigeon-holed even, into the most obscure, precise genetic event that may only have a loose connection to tumor development. Obviously, this can be a problem if we don't step back and look at the bigger picture.

If there is one thing I cannot stress enough, it's that Cancer is not a single disease. Neuroblastoma and prostate cancer have so very little in common that studying these diseases concurrently doesn't really make sense. Yes, they are both due to unregulated growth of a certain cell type(s), but not many other similarities.

There will not be a single "Silver Bullet" that will cure all cancer types. We have to look at them as different animals altogether.

What is the progress in discovering biomarkers for efficacy in CD28 and CTLA4 inhibitors

I totally get what you mean by the "cancer isn't a single disease" thing. I actually have an obscure type of cancer-like condition that's nonmalignant (had it since I was a toddler). So a follow-up question: since there's such a loose connection between some of these extraneous types of cancer, what unifies them? In a sense, I'm asking you what the criteria are for something to be considered cancerous if these conditions have such important differences.

Why do you think immune targeting strategies are more effective than e.g. using a mab with some kind of deathstick attached to it?

>There will not be a single "Silver Bullet" that will cure all cancer types.
About that, (another non-biofag here so forgive me if I'm spouting wrong cliches), I believe there is such a thing as a "cancer paradox" when it comes to large animals like elephants.
Given their huge size, they should likely be getting cancers all the time, but they just don't, which means there exists some sort of mechanism to prevent cancer in them.
So is there some possibility of understanding that mechanism and replicating it in humans?

I'm not terribly familiar with that particular biomarker. I've been loosely involved with the whole PD1/PDL1 checkpoint inhibitor. It's getting a lot of funding now.

I'll refer you Weinberg's "Hallmarks of Cancer" that defines what actually makes a cell or tumor cancerous (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hallmarks_of_Cancer). Some cancer cells do share the same root cause of proliferation and disregulation. NGS (Next-gen sequencing) is shedding light on which of these causes are most common, therapeutically targetable, and the biological mechanics behind it.

The complexity behind the immune system is unmatched to the number of different drugs we can develop, even in 2016. Google VDJ recombination to understand how immune cells develop from a naive state to being able to recognize trillions of targets (antigens).

Why have brain cancer survival rates moved almost not at all?

After a quick google (yes, everyone googles everything nowadays), I see that elephants have 20 copies of the TP53 gene that encodes a VERY important tumor suppressor protein involved in cell regulation.

We can learn a lot from other species but at the end of the day, different DNA = different Pathologies.

I get how the immune system works, but you still have to alter its targeting mechanisms so it will actually attack the cancer cells. Doing so requires finding some unique antigen on the cancer cell (generally a surface biomarker) and getting the immune system to recognize it. So why not just target the biomarker directly?

Does this mean that we should be more like elephants or that we should eat elephants

Just clench really hard, and you can control your genes. It's a difficult skill to master, but I heard someone on /x/ say it could happen. Seems like a viable option to me.

I can't give you much epidemiological insight but what I can tell you is that the brain is very complicated. By the time clinical symptoms present, the tumor is growing quickly. The blood brain barrier make drug delivery tricky and obviously biopsy or surgery has its challenges.

Sometimes that biomarker that you believe is exclusive to that cancer cell is involved in some other process or cell type. This is something I can actually speak specifics on as I did my thesis on chemokine receptors in breast cancer. That chemokine (or receptor) that we were targeting were highly expressed on the cancer cell and also expressed on tissues undergoing repair by leukocytes (inflammatory response). The goal was finding a balance to killing those cancer cells without completely derailing the leukocyte trafficking.

Long story short, if you can find a biomarker EXCLUSIVE to that cancer cell, it's a good place to start. But they can and will evolve to a different phenotype expressing different biomarkers.

OP. What's a good book to read on this topic?
Esp. if you want to get into the field.

Op, how and why does colon cancer form? Factors?

I believe doing this will encode a gene for clenching

Dubs speak the truth.

But how can you train the immune system to only kill cancer cells that are expressing the biomarker? I would imaging if you manage to make immune cells recognize some antigen, they'll wreck shop on every cell expressing it? I know there are some surface biomarkers that are actually protective against immune attack, but in general?

I'm trying to get at this - what is the advantage of using the immune system to do your dirty work if you're still reliant, essentially, on surface antigen recognition for targeting?

Emperor of All Maladies. by Siddartha Mukerjee. (sp?). It's a great book to learn about the history and progress of cancer and cancer research. If you're looking for something technical, pick up any edition of Robert Weinberg's "Cancer" textbook. It was my bible for 2 years.

Colon cancer (like other cancers) is a result of DNA mutation that leads to unregulated cell growth. Simple as that. Your lifestyle (exercise, diet, stress) can promote DNA damage. I can rattle off the specific gene mutations that are linked to colorectal cancer if you're interested. One last note, genetics play only a small role in colorectal cancer.

>. Your lifestyle (exercise, diet, stress) can promote DNA damage.

Awesome answers (both). Rattle some gene mutations please. Side question - how do you principally test for gene mutations?

How does diet promote DNA damage?

On "Stress causes DNA damage" -> any proper scientific articles?

Does radiation from a CT scanner cause cancer?

Nice trips Veeky Forumsbro.

It's worth noting that your immune system is ALWAYS actively surveilling and killing anomalous cells (i.e. cancer) based on surface markers. You're right though, we are targeting extracellular proteins because they express what is happening at the DNA-level inside of the nucleus. NGS is a way to understand what is happening at that genetic level but we don't have many tools to un-fuck the DNA once the damage is done and the cells are replicating. My *OPINION* on why the approach to modulate the innate immune system is so critical is because the number of antigens a T-cell can recognize (in-vivo) far outweighs the number of drugs we can develop and experiment with in the lab.

>How does diet promote DNA damage?
Is chromosomal / DNA damage permanent? Reversible?

If medical science is capable of regrowing my thyroids 10-20 yrs from now will it develop cancer again?

k-ras, p53 loss of heterozygosity, TGF-b mutations, and PI3-Kinase mutations are common.

Diet plays a role in inflammatory events, inflammation can lead to DNA damage. I'm not a dietician but if you're interested in the mechanics of antioxidants, inflammatory microenvironment, etc, there are many publications that I can share with you.

I don't have any on-hand, let me see what I can find.

The risk is negligible. Not zero, but not worth worrying about.

I agree with you about the antigen-recognition capacity of T-cells (or more broadly the immune system). If you target the immune system to some antigen, certainly it makes multiple antibodies to that antigen. But, as the targeted cancer cells evolves, does the immune system continue to target those cells (once they no longer express the initial antigen target)? I understand just how effectively the immune system can interrogate 3-d structures to find efficient ways to bind them. But won't immune targeting have the same drawbacks as every other antigen-targeting approach? Namely off-target effects and cancer evolving to express less of the antigen.

A traumagram (full body CT ideally with IV contrast) increases your lifetime cancer risk by ~1/300. That's small compared to our overall lifetime risk, but maybe worth worrying about.

I don't know anything so when you say diet can promote cancer, I just think stuff like eating burnt food, red meat, or highly processed foods with toxic chemicals.

There are several biological processes occurring in the nucleus of your cells to repair DNA damage. In a sense, some damage is repaired. However, if the damage does not inhibit the cell's ability to divide, it will continue on, carrying on that DNA damage to the daughter cells and so on.

That's a great question. The short answer is maybe. Virtually every cell that divides is capable of becoming cancerous. It depends on what cells the transplant thryoid is grown from, the environment the new thyroid lives in, and ultimately chance. I hate to say that because as a scientist, we want to know the objective answers, but in reality, it's impossible to say.

I did my undergrad research in targeted drug delivery using micelles for cancer treatment. How feasible is this irl? Does anyone in industry give half a shi about it, or is it an academic pipe dream?

I actually worked on a project looking at heterocyclic amines from burnt meats and there is a link. A delicious, chargrilled, link between those compounds and cancer incidence. You're right though, some chemical compounds (such as HCA's) do promote a PRO-inflammatory environment that is linked to DNA damage.

BRB, guys, have a meeting for about 45 mins.

>BRB
How can we keep in touch with you?

Can an extremely long sore throat inflammation (months) cause cancer?

Hello OP. Curious:
> Can cancer cells survive in an alkaline environment and what makes them different from normal cells in this regard, and what is cancer anyway?
> Why do cancer cells metabolize sugar so readily and if there's no sugar being consumed by the body, what else can they use?
> What does the body do to respond to cancerous cells? Is it actively trying to stop it, say, via lymph?
> Can traces of the cancer be found in the urine? If there are antibodies/antigens, can they be re-used (perhaps consumed) to aid the immune system?
Thanks

"...Pharma industry and it's business models"

"its", not "it's"

You want my cell phone number? ;)

Any type of inflammation can cause DNA damage and cell transformation, sure. That said, I wouldn't be too concerned about that giving you cancer. Why has your throat been sore for months?

Some of these questions have been answered above. I only like to speak about cancer cells in-vivo (in the body). If you want to look at in-vitro cancer cells, of course they can live in slightly alkaline or acidic environments depending on other elements they're exposed to. As a biochem undergrad I can tell you that cells generally metabolize sugars into usable energy, it is also possible to generate energy from fatty acids and other sources but it is less efficient. The immune system is constantly working to deplete cancer cells. Traces of cancer can indeed be found in the blood, a company that I used to work for (Trovagene) is developing a diagnostic test using this approach.

Thanks for the pedantic but deserved correction.

pls answer bby

haha sorry, missed that. There is A LOT of interest in looking at exosomes in regard to cancer diagnostics and disease monitoring right now. This isn't so much of a drug delivery mechanism (at least right now) but I could see it being implemented down the road.

90% of research is an "academic pipe dream." Just like 90%+ of biotech companies that spin out of these pipe dreams fail. But don't let that discourage you, simply move on to what interests you and to who will pay you money for your knowledge and experience.

This man claims that animal protein causes cancer. Is he full of shit?

T Colin Campbell. He's a professor emeritus at Cornell with a long career of scientific publications, they guy is definitely smart. Many scientists have fringe theories that don't necessarily jive with accepted notions and sometimes they are right. I'd have to read some of his papers to form my own opinion, but to say that all animal proteins accelerate cancer proliferation or incidence seems very unlikely.

Let me peruse some of his pubs and I'll respond later with my opinion.

Do you have cancer?

Are you cancer?

thanks senpai

Thanks. Do you think the Trovagene diag. test would ever be made available to the extent that anyone could pick it up from the store and test themselves at home?

And one more q (sorry if it's been discussed already)- is there any difference between cancer cells of different types of cancer, other than just simply its location?

Not OP but I wonder if it has something to do with the length of time the meat sits in our lengthy intestines. And if it's all meat, or just cooked meat- I can see the "burning" causing carcinogens/free-radicals which might mess w DNA and subsequent cell divisions.

Are there syndicates which try to lobby negatively in cancer research, and how big is their influence?

do you have the cure for the cancer that's killing /b?

seriously tough: estimately, taking all cancers into account, how much of cancer is due to things you cant control (like genetics and location) and how much is because of things you can control (like diet, lifestyle etc...) 50%-50%?

both if you take age into account or if you dont

>Many scientists have fringe theories that don't necessarily jive with accepted notions
Linus Pauling

I'm OP, I don't have cancer, I am a huge faggot. Though the two aren't mutually exclusive.

NP.

Yes, it could be widely sold as a diagnostic test but only for certain cancer types. As to your other question, cancer cells of different organs are VERY different from one another. A breast cancer cell is a mutated/dysfunctional breast cell. A liver cell (cancerous or not) is very different from a breast cell in terms of shape, size, function, proteins it encodes, etc.

I don't really know, I'm not much of a politics guy. But none that I know of come to mind. Especially since Obama's Cancer Moonshot Inititative, there are very few that oppose investing in cancer research.

/b/ is the biggest tumor of Veeky Forums, that's why I find it so fascinating.

The BIGGEST risk factor to acquiring cancer is simply old age. The longer you live, the more often the cell has to divide, the more often mutations can and will occur. Aging of the cellular machinery also affects the accuracy of DNA replication. Genetics do play a role, but not to the degree that most people think. Direct familial genetics account for ~5% of inherited cancers, 95% are spontaneous.

Don't know enough about the guy, can you elaborate?

What should I do for my summers to help with my application?

I'm going to be starting with a researcher soon. Would talking genetics be a good idea to supplement the research? How hard is genetics?

but, taking age out of the question is there much one can do to prevent getting cancer?

once you do take age into the equation, is it the more common cause of death by old age?

Have you worked with bubbles as a delivery method for targeted chemo?

Are you in undergrad? What are your career goals? Are you in the US?

Genetics is not hard if you have a good understanding of intro biology and cell/molecular bio. These are basic pre-reqs to understanding genetics.

>Are you in undergrad?
Yep

> What are your career goals? Are you in the US?
I wan't to gun for a MD/PhD program and yes I'm in the US.

I'll be able to take it the semester after this. I've just heard around that orgo 2 was a requirement or something.

Please don't go for the MD/PhD because the title sounds cool. It is fucking hard-ass work and you won't start making a penny until you're in your late 30's. You'll need a 3.8 GPA, 35+ MCAT, and loads of experience to even be considered. Not trying to scare you away but if you set the bar super high and fail, you'll scramble to find a career and/or life purpose after that point.

t. speaking from experience.

I watched a video detailing this cancer researched who (surprise) got cancer, and decided to treat himself as another trial. Eliminated sugar entirely, switched to an 80:20 plant:animal diet, etc.

Claimed that sugars are what cancers feed off of, followed with pages of shit about how feeding cancer rats sugar water increased growth rate and number of tumors compared to control, etc.

is there any truth to it or is it bullshit? Also I'm in the "antithesis of sugar" business so for any negative reviews of sugar you give I will ship you 1kg of anti-sugar to use at your discretion

Thoughts on Radiation Hormesis as it might pertain to cancer?

>Don't know enough about the guy, can you elaborate?

Oh boy.

quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pauling.html

>You'll need a 3.8 GPA, 35+ MCAT, and loads of experience to even be considered

Oh that's perfectly fine. The only thing about it that scares me is the MCAT. I'll pick up a book soon and I may even take some prep classes. The GPA thing should be fine and I'm already doing community service, along with starting as a research assistant.

I'm also not really doing it for the money. If I were I'd just go for a straight MD, since they make more on average, right?

>I wan't to gun for a MD/PhD program and yes I'm in the US.

Every MD/PHD I have ever met has said not to do this. Granted, I have only met like 5 in my lifetime but they stress its better to just go one or the other

Did you knew that besides everything, you are still just a rat in a cage?

That's weird. Is it because there are so many years of schooling for it?

Will a typical head CT scan damage DNA or kill cells?

Yes. It's increasingly hard enough to justify the opportunity cost of just one of those, let alone both. If you want to just be a clinical doctor (or find out that's what you want to do), then the PHD is mostly useless. If you are interested in medical research, it is extremely rare to find a position that requires both an MD and a PHD. Most MD/PHDs usually have to work for years before they get enough clout to get more time to work on research matters (and also to build the acumen to get large grants).

This is a shit ton of work for 1-2 DECADES before a possible payoff and so much can go wrong in the interim. MD/PHD is usually a coveted prize of the lifetime overachiever but it is just statistically very unlikely that you will can predict your future goals and desires 15 years from now.

There is a huge movement against the sugar train and indeed it is the source of many debilitating diseases due to overconsumption. With that said, human metabolism has a way to generate "sugar" out of non-sugars. Gluconeogenesis is the process by which fats and other macromolecules are converted to glucose. The cells have no fucking clue that the glucose originally came from fats, it's processed the same. While I certainly advocate people to eat fewer processed sugars and enjoy a more balanced diet with natural foods, I do not agree with the demonization of sugar. I've even been on the keto diet, read all of Lyle's books, and understand on a biochemical level how it affects human physiology.

I had to Google WTF that even is. I can't speak intelligently about it so I'll pass. But my BS meter is definitely activated.

Welp, TIL. Fuck that guy. I know many researchers and leaders at the NCI and they are, without question, the highest integrity and brightest people I have met in my short time in the field. Would love to hear him justify that quote.

PS: I'm at one of San Diego's best breweries right now, looking forward to some more insightful questions!

>TIL
He was (d. 1994) one of the first to apply the nascent quantum theory to chemistry. He's highly respected for that, most of us can manage neither disgust nor pity for the quackery of his late career. It's kind of this big momento mori - our ability to recognize justified arguments itself is just so fragile, no matter how we train it and what we achieve.

I'm kind of afraid I'm going to start seeing shadow people and hearing voices any day now.

This is common practice for late time PhD's trying to stay relevant in the field.

Pic unrelated: Why do I keep getting booted from posting here?

Do you enjoy your job? Is it fulfilling? Do you do it because you want to help or to pursue interest.

If I wanted to learn about biology on this level do I have to go to college?

Absolutely. I work for a mid-size pharma company, there is constant growth opportunities and I get to train new grads on our technology. We are only involved in a small sector of cancer therapeutics but I go to conferences and such every year to keep up with the latest technologies. I am 100% happy with my life, salary, co-workers, and industry as a whole.

Of course not. So much information is publicly available, from publications to text books to breaking tech news. If you're interested in learning more, I'd be glad to point you in the right direction for supplemental materials.

It was due to viral infection (doc prescribed antibiotics, idiot). Lasted long, red, now the tonsils are completely large.

No not cell phone, but some forum or public email?

You can come to Europe to study. In most countries education is free. Some have additional benefits if you study well (even living costs covered).

OP, reason I asked about what to read is because I'm looking into biotech superficially. I am a programmer focusing on deep learning, computer vision, etc among others. Maybe I can contribute something to the field.

Have fun at the brewery!

So pharmacy industry is buisniss model, how much pills induce diagnosis?

What are your thoughts on Martin Shkreli?

Is there any actual evidence that the pharmaceutical industry is actively stiffling a cure to cancer? I doubt it, honestly. I understand that the pharmaceutical industry absolutely lobbies politicians and agency executives (high level DEA officials on scheduling things) in order to have the government eliminate the competition, but stifling a cure to cancer seems pretty outlandish, to be honest.

When will you be selling medical nanobots.

Any tips for an user just finishing his first year of a biomedical science degree?
Eg; any specific fields to try to get in, companies, courses/areas of focus etc?

can't you just cut off the parts with the cancer?

How do we stop the cancer killing Veeky Forums?

Raise the posting age to 21

If he's talking about neu5gc, then probably not.

What do you think about BRAF-type melanoma and tetramethylpyrazine or guarana seeds.