
Brazilian wasp venom kills cancer cells by opening them up - caio1982
http://phys.org/news/2015-09-brazilian-wasp-venom-cancer-cells.html
======
qCOVET
Since we are on the subject of cancer - allow me to pen down a few thoughts
for those interested in the subject.

(a) You already know that ...Cancer could be caused by hundreds of different
mutations in the genome that would disrupt a cell cycle control pathway. Which
means it becomes increasingly difficult to find a single bullet solution to
all cancers.

(b) You already know that ... Even if you find a way to target cancer cells,
how do you differentiate between good cells vs. bad cells

(c) You may kindda know that... Researchers are trying hard to find specific
markers on the cancer cell membrane, to differentiate them from good cells and
target them for destruction. The WASP venom thing is another idea ... but
venoms have been known to target calcium/calmodulin channels. So nothing too
fancy.

(d) You may not know that... The most promising research in cancer therapy is
to disrupt metabolic pathways of cancer cells. You see, doesn't matter what
pathway led to the cause of cancer ... but they all need food to divide. If
you could terminate their food supply, disrupt a metabolic pathway .. then
there is a chance of stopping them...as a generic bullet for all cancers,
irrespective of what mutation caused it. Furthermore, the metabolic pathway of
cancer cells and normal cells are distinguishable.

Read more: Warburg effect and a paper that was published this year:
[http://www.news-medical.net/news/20150626/SLU-researchers-
fi...](http://www.news-medical.net/news/20150626/SLU-researchers-find-way-to-
stop-growth-of-cancer-cells-by-targeting-the-Warburg-Effect.aspx)

~~~
rogeryu
(e) You may not know that ... cancer prevalence depends heavily on vitamin D
levels. People living around the equator have a 40-60% lesser chance of
getting cancer than people living in the US, Canada or Europe. This is even
true for people living in Florida. We don't get enough UV-B from the sun, not
like centuries ago when we didn't have to work indoors and didn't use
sunscreen. People with dark or darker skin have an even bigger risk.

The risk of getting nonmelanoma skin cancer from UV-B is relatively low, and
it's easy to treat. Melanoma skin cancer is dangerous, but not related to sun
exposure. Taking vitamin D using pills or getting enough sun exposure (without
sunscreen) without getting burnt may be the cheapest and most easy way to
reduce cancer risk.

Below some links, these about breast cancer. AFAIK these numbers are similar
for other cancers like liver, lung, colon, etc.

[http://bigthink.com/devil-in-the-data/vitamin-d-sun-and-
canc...](http://bigthink.com/devil-in-the-data/vitamin-d-sun-and-cancer)

[http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/26/health/he-
explain26](http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/26/health/he-explain26)

[http://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/proc05/papers/p...](http://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/proc05/papers/pap1468.pdf)

Or Google that yourself:
[https://www.google.com/webhp?q=cancer+rates+equator](https://www.google.com/webhp?q=cancer+rates+equator)

~~~
mikecsh
Sorry, what? Please provide some sources for these claims.

As far as I'm aware melanoma is most definitely related to sun exposure and
there is no consensus opinion on vitamin-D and cancer prevention, with the
most evidence being for it being protective against certain bowel cancers..

Edit: Here's a source for my view:
[http://www.nhs.uk/livewell/summerhealth/documents/concensus_...](http://www.nhs.uk/livewell/summerhealth/documents/concensus_statement%20_vitd_dec_2010.pdf)
[3rd and 4th bullet points for example]

~~~
erkkie
There's some data to speculate that chronic non-burning levels of sun exposure
is protective against melanoma while acute burning exposure is inductive.
Until the data becomes more clear get some sun exposure but do not burn.

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2082713/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2082713/)

~~~
rogeryu
This is exactly what I mean. Burning is not good, never. It damages the skin
and that can cause cancer. Getting 1 MED of sun / UVB a week is however OK it
seems.

What 1 MED is for you depends on where you live, what time of the year it is,
and what skintype you have. If you take a sunbath of one hour in New York in
July, and the next day your skin if mildly rose but not burnt, than 1 MED = 1
hour of sun for you, under those circumstances. Then you can divide that into
two or three parts spread out over the week. So for 1 hour, you can sit in the
sun for 20 minutes three times a week. That will give you enough vitamin D
without causing nonmelanoma skin cancer.

In Mexico the sun is brighter, so that would shorten your 1 MED period. In
november in NY the sun is less bright, so that would make it longer and
probably even harmless.

~~~
erkkie
Yes, absolutely, also of note is that it's not just only vitamin d that is
good for you but nitric oxide related effects as well:
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24445737](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24445737)
(ted talk about this topic:
[https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_weller_could_the_sun_be_go...](https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_weller_could_the_sun_be_good_for_your_heart?language=en))

------
baldfat
September is Childhood Cancer Month.

I lost my sister to Brain Cancer in 1996 when she was 15

I lost my son to Bone Cancer in 2013 when he was 12

Most Cancer Charities give penny or so to Childhood Cancer research and
Federal Research Grants give 4 cents to the dollar to Childhood Cancer
research.

In the last 20 years only 2 new drugs have been approved till a 3rd this
spring.

St Baldrick's and Childhood Cancer Research Fund give the majority of their
funds to research and St Baldrick's actually help find the first new treatment
in years with a 30% better results!
[http://www.stbaldricks.org/blog/post/breaking-news-the-
fda-a...](http://www.stbaldricks.org/blog/post/breaking-news-the-fda-approves-
childhood-cancer-drug/)

~~~
brianbreslin
First off, I am sorry for your loss, cannot begin to understand how it must
feel. Secondly, that is incredible about the new drug, it is crazy it takes
that long to find more possible treatments for such a widespread cause of
death.

What are some more effective ways we can give or help that won't be eaten up
by overhead of the charities?

~~~
smt88
Cancer is a widespread cause of death, but unfortunately "cancer" is a very
broad category. Just because two illnesses are both classified as cancer
doesn't mean they'll respond to the same drugs/treatment. We're finding a lot
more success with tailored approaches than creating new drugs.

I think one of the most promising approaches to treatment is discussed here:
[http://www.ted.com/talks/jay_bradner_open_source_cancer_rese...](http://www.ted.com/talks/jay_bradner_open_source_cancer_research)

I have a friend who works at American Cancer Society. I asked him the best
place to donate to, and he said Livestrong Foundation. I don't know his
reasoning, but he's brilliant and incredibly knowledgeable about cancer.

------
stevoski
I wish the "novel discovery/technique against cancer" news items would stop
appearing on hacker news. They are a staple of mainstream media, always with
super promising headlines, but with nothing but a far-fetched, vague promise
behind them.

As far as I can tell, they are from press releases from research centers who
need to get some media attention to secure their future funding. But they are
never actually cures for cancer.

~~~
nitrogen
As someone who does not follow the field, I enjoy knowing about new things
people are working on, even if they never pan out. It helps expand the horizon
of what my mind can conceive as possible.

------
jane_is_here
Read the primary source.

Abstract:
[http://www.cell.com/biophysj/abstract/S0006-3495(15)00768-7](http://www.cell.com/biophysj/abstract/S0006-3495\(15\)00768-7)

Full text:
[http://www.cell.com/biophysj/fulltext/S0006-3495(15)00768-7](http://www.cell.com/biophysj/fulltext/S0006-3495\(15\)00768-7)

Please do not go off on a tangent after reading brain dead PR releases meant
for the masses. These are the scientific world's equivalent of clickbait and
have little connection to the actual study.

------
stephengillie
> _MP1 interacts with lipids that are abnormally distributed on the surface of
> cancer cells, creating gaping holes that allow molecules crucial for cell
> function to leak out._

This is fascinating. As IANAMD, I had no idea there were physical (or
nanomechanical?) differences between normal and cancer cells. This sounds like
a huge number of mistakes, maybe from the extremely rapid divisions.

So is _Polybia-MP1_ another game changer in the Cancer world?

~~~
venomsnake
We have thousands effective ways to kill cancer cells. Making sure the host
survives is the tricky part.

~~~
jMyles
[https://xkcd.com/1217/](https://xkcd.com/1217/)

------
Jun8
What I don't understand is: how did they first think of testing this venom for
its anticancer properties? Do researchers test many different antimicrobial
substances, Edison fashion, to see which kills cancer cells?

~~~
sjg007
Yep.

~~~
ddoscampaign
Any idea how this is done at scale, on C cancer cell lines x W compounds?

~~~
drmilsurp
one way is 3D colony formation assay, 96 or more WxC combinations at a time
depending on format and replication requirements

------
Aoyagi
I keep hearing about these almost miraculous cures, what would my ontology
office (if I had cancer) tell me if I asked for Brazilian wasp venom
treatment?

~~~
bvm
"you're looking for science -> disease -> treatment -> oncology, down the
corridor"

~~~
logicallee
This is a really funny comment!

