In a recent op-ed piece in the NY Times, James D. Watson makes several statements on cancer that need to be addressed by this writer.
First, he states that cancer can be beat because we now know the genetics and chemistry of the cancer cell. In line with what I have written so far, the present knowledge on cancer genetics will not lead to a cure. We need to know the steps that the epithelial cells go through from from embryonic stem cells to differentiated cells. Only this will enable us to recreate the embryonic milieu that the cancer cell seeks.
He goes on to say that, "We shall soon know all the genetic changes that underlie the major cancers that plague us." This knowledge will not help us unless it includes CRF's or those cell surface factors that guide cells to their next station in the fully developed organism. [I know I promised to look into possible contenders for these molecules but after reading the only molecular chemistry literature that I could get my hands on, I see only the cadherins/adherins as possible candidates. Although these are indeed promising, I have to reserve judgement until I have more data.]
He talks about targeting a cancer cell's glucose metabolism but a cancer cell is for the most part a normal embryonic cell living at the wrong time (in the adult) and any attacks against it will result in damage to normal adult cells. There are only two ways of curing cancer that I think have any possibility of mass success. The clean way is to reprogram the cell's genome through CRF's expressed on the cell membrane or through other epigenetic means. The dirty way is to target with antibodies all cell surface molecules that are uniquely expressed by cancer cells. This, alone, or in combination with cytotoxic molecules might work.
If there is any chemistry to be done, let it be to characterize the cell surface in its entire tissue/stage specificities and figure out a way to mimic the CRF's of neighboring "cell." I would find a way to create artificial surrogate cells using nanotech.
One final comment I take issue with is his suggestion to President Obama that he must "choose strong new leadership for the [National Cancer] institute from among our nation's best cancer researchers." The best cancer researchers will not get us anywhere unless they pay heed to developmental biology. He also recommends "a seasoned developer of new pharmaceuticals who can radically speed up the pace. . ." He should first suggest a reasonable target for these hypothetical drugs and Big Pharm will take care of the rest but that's if you still believe in the shotgun approach. I don't, not for cancer anyway.
First, he states that cancer can be beat because we now know the genetics and chemistry of the cancer cell. In line with what I have written so far, the present knowledge on cancer genetics will not lead to a cure. We need to know the steps that the epithelial cells go through from from embryonic stem cells to differentiated cells. Only this will enable us to recreate the embryonic milieu that the cancer cell seeks.
He goes on to say that, "We shall soon know all the genetic changes that underlie the major cancers that plague us." This knowledge will not help us unless it includes CRF's or those cell surface factors that guide cells to their next station in the fully developed organism. [I know I promised to look into possible contenders for these molecules but after reading the only molecular chemistry literature that I could get my hands on, I see only the cadherins/adherins as possible candidates. Although these are indeed promising, I have to reserve judgement until I have more data.]
He talks about targeting a cancer cell's glucose metabolism but a cancer cell is for the most part a normal embryonic cell living at the wrong time (in the adult) and any attacks against it will result in damage to normal adult cells. There are only two ways of curing cancer that I think have any possibility of mass success. The clean way is to reprogram the cell's genome through CRF's expressed on the cell membrane or through other epigenetic means. The dirty way is to target with antibodies all cell surface molecules that are uniquely expressed by cancer cells. This, alone, or in combination with cytotoxic molecules might work.
If there is any chemistry to be done, let it be to characterize the cell surface in its entire tissue/stage specificities and figure out a way to mimic the CRF's of neighboring "cell." I would find a way to create artificial surrogate cells using nanotech.
One final comment I take issue with is his suggestion to President Obama that he must "choose strong new leadership for the [National Cancer] institute from among our nation's best cancer researchers." The best cancer researchers will not get us anywhere unless they pay heed to developmental biology. He also recommends "a seasoned developer of new pharmaceuticals who can radically speed up the pace. . ." He should first suggest a reasonable target for these hypothetical drugs and Big Pharm will take care of the rest but that's if you still believe in the shotgun approach. I don't, not for cancer anyway.
Comments