
A new type of molecular medicine may be needed to halt cancers - prostoalex
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21711867-doctors-must-look-proteins-rather-genes-tackle-tumours-new-type?cid1=cust/ednew/n/bl/n/20161215n/owned/n/n/nwl/n/n/NA/8374158/n
======
ohyoutravel
I just finished the cancer biography "The Emperor of All Maladies" today, and
it goes into molecular medicine in the final part. It's a quick read (or else
I was particularly interested and read it fast). I highly recommend it in
general:

[https://www.amazon.com/Emperor-All-Maladies-Biography-
Cancer...](https://www.amazon.com/Emperor-All-Maladies-Biography-
Cancer/dp/1439170916)

------
theMoreWeGit2
So far the comments have strayed mightily from the locus.

The article concerns molecular medicine. We are a computationally oriented
group, and as such are better served by combining our brain trust to define
and use what technological tools may avail the molecular mechanics at issue.

I've worked for a top-5 molecular modeling research center and can say from
experience that there are a few things to do to rectify this dilemma. Before
positing my solution(s), let's address what happens so the solutions make
sense.

The proteins malform and the resulting tertiary structure does not aggregate
properly, thus producing physical interactions that disrupt the typical
cellular processes. These malformations are caused by genetic mutations, or by
heavy atomic elements that are either stochastically introduced into the cell
or are the by-product of, say, working in a plutonium factory.

The malformations are very common, and so over the aeons we have adapted a
nice little helper molecule to do some repair work for us.

These molecules are called pharmacological chaperones and are fucking amazing,
pardon ma Francais...

The gist of what they do reform the tertiary structure by aligning somewhat
near the malformed protein and subsequently, almost inadvertently, it might
seem to an untrained observer, polarize the molecule ever so slightly such
that the tertiary structure reforms (there is a pun to be made here about
social change, but I digress) and the unwanted behavior is no longer present.

My thesis work is geared to designing algorithms that map molecular topography
so we can better predict tertiary structure (itself an enormous undertaking,
AWS, Azure, BlueMix, you listening?!) and then design (using some nifty
techniques I've learned in my AI classes) the organic molecule that has the
most empirically demonstrative capacity for altering the malformed protein to
prevent any disease resulting from said malformation.

That includes, but is not limited to, Prion diseases, many, if not most,
cancers, and neuron centered degenerative diseases.

It's kind of a big deal...to quote a certain broadcaster :p

The reality is that we ARE fairly close to proving how to fix this, though
Lord knows I could use a side gig to bouy me through the debts I have
mounting, and I'm working on securing NHS, NSF and hopefully even some private
dollars to scale my work into practical (meaning applicably utile, and not
simply published) products that can solve the cancer crisis we currently
endure.

Long ass answer, but that's where the state of the art is on this topic, for
which I am grateful to have this forum to discuss with whomever is on the
other end of this server, and for the opportunity to pursue my research with
the help of my mentors and senior scientists.

For reasons begging belief I will not mention their names until we publish and
hope that this brief description gives a little tinder to light a bit of a
blaze under this scientifically, socially, and evolutionarily important topic.

Cheers, y'all.

~~~
credit_guy
One of the greatest way to advance human knowledge is to combine ideas from
seemingly different domains in fruitful ways.

For example AI and molecular topography.

Another striking example is combining the 419 scam with the Sokol affair.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance-
fee_scam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance-fee_scam)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair)

Pro tip: on this forum you should replace "nifty AI" with "tensor deep
stacking networks", or at the least with "deep learning". Common, it's only a
wikipedia link away.

Otherwise I applaud the effort.

Allow me to make yet another non-obvious and potentially super-profitable
connection to your innovation: the pyramid scheme. I've been putting together
some materials that can help young and energetic entrepreneurs such as
yourself to improve their con game and also reach a wider audience, and more
importantly, an audience with more disposable income. Generally, I offer my
package for $120 and 5% participation in your net income derived from it, but
I think you show extraordinary promise, so if you PM me the rate will be the
practical give away of $19.99 and 3% of the profits.

~~~
theMoreWeGit2
This forum, you mean the one where they are arguing about whether or not being
healthy might help prevent cancer after reading an article about molecular
medicine?

Deep stacking tensor networks, is that what they do when they write movie
scripts? Or does that involve requesting an audience with the Pope after
pretending to be Henri Kissinger?

Nice touch with the scam there, so as to distract from your complicity.

You rule!

------
ilaksh
I believe next-gen cancer research is related to next-gen aging research. See
[http://sens.org](http://sens.org)

------
davidf18
The best way to halt cancer is to ensure that they never start. Tobacco use
contributes to 12 different cancers and makes up about one-third of all
cancers[1]. Obesity and lack of exercise can contribute another third.

[1]
[https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/mm6544a3.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/mm6544a3.htm)

~~~
Moshe_Silnorin
Untrue. Making a car that never breaks down is impossible. Repairing cars is
possible. In the case of aging and cancer, cure is much better than
prevention.

~~~
sndean
> Making a car that never breaks down is impossible.

> In the case of aging and cancer, cure is much better than prevention.

There's a non-zero chance that a cure for cancer is impossible [0][1]. A
"cure" for aging seems even less likely. So it's probably better to prevent,
since we know that'll work.

[0] [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-we-truly-
cure...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-we-truly-cure-cancer/)

[1] [https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/why-havent-we-cured-
cancer-...](https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/why-havent-we-cured-cancer-yet/)

~~~
darawk
Cures for everything are possible. We are just atoms. Nothing prevents
rearranging those atoms into any configuration we desire, in principle.

~~~
SiVal
The big theoretical challenge is "restoring" me to a state that has never
existed. I want my brain's atoms restored to a young arrangement of atoms in
terms of health but while retaining its old arrangement of atoms in terms of
learning.

There is an existence proof for one or the other but not for both at the same
time.

~~~
darawk
True, but there is an existence proof for say, you at 25. And while strictly
speaking there's no proof that you could know all the same things you know
now, I find it hard to credit the idea that you wouldn't be able to retain
your knowledge and your youth simultaneously.

