
Seneca Valley Virus has earned a reputation as a potent oncolytic agent - known
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2018/10/30/1810664115.full.pdf
======
retSava
> They used a cryogenic electron microscope to see the link between the virus
> and the receptor at a resolution of only a few atoms

I would love to see some of those pictures!

Edit: one of them is in the paper linked
below,[https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2018/10/30/181066411...](https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2018/10/30/1810664115.full.pdf)

Amazing what the human race can accomplish!

------
piokoch
Sounds promising, unfortunately it seems that currently it does not really
work.

"The problem was that the experiments also found that the patient's immune
system was fighting the virus and effectively removing it from the body within
three weeks, thus preventing it from completing its anticancer action."

Anyway, good that they managed to get research to the clinical trials level
(it is not one more miracle cure for cancer that makes happy only laboratory
mice and rats communities) and extends our knowledge how immune system works.

~~~
neuronic
> unfortunately it seems that currently it does not really work

As much as I'd like to see cancer defeated and the suffering of millions
reduced to nothing, I don't think this is the way.

We have to be VERY careful what we are doing with tools like CRISPR and the
like. We now wield instruments to reshape biological life. Anyone who studied
biology for a period can attest to the insane complexity and
interconnectedness underlying both micro- and macro-level systems in biology.
It is next to impossible to predict how any biological system will react as
whole over long periods of time. The complexity is akin to predicting the
weather years from now.

All our approximations, models and calculations developed over decades running
on the toughest new supercomputers can't produce accurate weather forecasts
even just 3 _days_ from now. What hubris to believe the same could be done in
biology!

The current top comment rightfully points out the danger of giving a _virus_
the ability to fully circumvent all immune defense systems and hand out
apoptosis like Santa Claus on Christmas.

~~~
rapnie
As a noob in biology - let alone the power of CRISPR - I am often wondering
about claims of any GMO being declared safe for wide-scale use 'in the wild'.
This while (other) scientists are marveling at the incredible new intricacies
they are discovering about the ecosystems they study. I know mutations are
occurring all of the time, but to me the ones we humans create seem likely to
be more risky / impactful than the natural ones. But, then, I am a noob :)

~~~
SuoDuanDao
The analogy I always use is of a computer program - a 700 megabyte program in
a language not designed for readability would be bad enough, but there's also
epigenetics to consider - every cell in a multicellular organism is
essentially forming part of the compiler for the cells next to it, so the
actual complexity is probably orders of magnitude larger.

And people want to give it a clean bill of health after three months of beta
testing by mice? No games studio would ship something like this.

~~~
lawlessone
>No games studio would ship something like this.

Bethesda might

~~~
belenos46
But if they did, we'd be able to patch it at home :D

------
phkahler
Great research. But now I'll have my usual rant based on a quote from the
article:

>> Findings from this study, in conjunction with future work on SVV-antibody
interaction sites, can provide a promising stage for the development of SVV
mutants with improved clinical applications.

In this case "improved clinical applications" means man-made variations that
can be patented. I mean, why wait? Sure go ahead and try to improve on it, but
in the mean time isn't it recommended for trials (in addition to other
treatments) against certain cancers? Or is it and I'm just not aware?

------
elmolino89
There are other known viruses with the same afinity to cancer cells. See the
Newcastle virus affecting chicken. Same problem: usually human immune system
does clear it up from the blood, so it can not reach cancer cells and wipe
them out. But N.virus-related cancer patient recoveries have been described.
Small number studies so far.

~~~
ianai
I wonder if this isn’t a blessing. Maybe the treatment is to inject the virus
near to the tumor. That way it does it’s job but is inevitably removed,
thankfully, by the body’s immune system. It shouldn’t remain in the system
longer than it’s needed anyway.

~~~
pvaldes
> it does it’s job but is inevitably removed, thankfully, by the body’s immune
> system

Some virus, like herpesviruses are able to fuse with the genetic code of the
host and remain there indefinitely. The inmune system will not touch it at
this state normally.

~~~
rbanffy
Do people ever learn anything from science-fiction movies? This is how every
zombie movie starts.

------
tw1010
It baffles me that 182 people have upvoted this. I must really be out-of-touch
with a large portion of the HN audience because not a word of this report
makes sense to me. What's the deal? And what introductory books (or blogs)
would HN suggest so this actually makes my brain go "oh, that's neat"?

~~~
ethbro
See: [https://www.khanacademy.org/science/high-school-
biology/hs-h...](https://www.khanacademy.org/science/high-school-biology/hs-
human-body-systems/hs-the-immune-system/a/intro-to-viruses)

Search for 'What is a viral infection?', read down from there to '1\.
Attachment' and make sure to expand the help tip on that one.

From a 30 sec scan of the article, this is about a specific virus'
preferential binding to a site that is expressed in many cancer tumors
(anthrax toxin receptor 1, ANTXR1).

This would allow viral-driven targeting of those cells (and few others), one
of the hardest problems in oncology. You can't hit what you can't find, or you
have to soak the entire body in enough toxic chemicals (chemo) to ensure it
reaches the tumor cells.

As with many things in microbiology, it seems we knew this virus could
preferentially target cancerous tumors. But we didn't know precisely why (aka
"the mechanism") or how. This paper is proposing an answer to that question.

Microbiology is essentially the study of how to build 3d puzzles with
chemistry and physics. Doing that is hard.

I'd highly recommend learning the basics of biology at the microbiology and
biochemical levels. It's a fascinating world, helps explain everyday macro-
medicine (read: what a doctor tells you), and I've found a surprising number
of useful parallels in computing systems design.

(Correct me if I'm off on anything, it's been a while since microbiology)

------
kingkawn
Always felt in my science-gut that the body’s ability to produce new tissues
of any-type anywhere in any amount for any reason was probably of great
benefit to us for the most part, and that treating it like a plague to burn
out was on the wrong track, and that treating it like something to attack at
its mechanistic route would probably bite us in the ass twice as hard

~~~
arcticfox
> Always felt in my science-gut that the body’s ability to produce new tissues
> of any-type anywhere in any amount for any reason was probably of great
> benefit to us for the most part

Except, of course, for being the second-leading cause of death. The problem is
being attacked from every angle, I'm not sure what you suggest they do better.
The plague-burn-out methods might save your life someday.

------
pettersolberg
Well, let's observe the run for the patent.

------
stzup7
When an article presents findings about curing cancer it's an immediate red
flag. Cancer is not a single disease but plethora of different diseases/types
of tumours with different behaviours and cures. You don't treat a breast
cancer the same way as a lung cancer or brain cancer. Even talking about
"brain cancer" is very generic and covers a wide range of tumours that are
treated differently.

~~~
skrunch
From the article:

"In an attempt to understand how the virus works, researchers at the
University of Otago in New Zealand discovered in 2017 that the virus binds to
a receptor called ANTXR1, which is active in more than 60 percent of the
cancers in humans."

------
dakom
"Such a move may be dangerous, as it will improve the virus's ability to
destroy cancer cells, but also produce a virus that is completely resistant to
the immune system, and if it builds up mutations, it might become dangerous."

Much better premise than the Umbrella corp. of Resident Evil or all the other
cliche zombie tropes

~~~
nothrabannosir
This is the premise of the film adaptation of I am Legend;

 _> The story is set in New York City after a virus, which was originally
created to cure cancer, has wiped out most of mankind, leaving Neville as the
last human in New York, other than nocturnal mutants._

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Legend_(film)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Legend_\(film\))

Mostly, Just Another Generic Zombie Film, though.

~~~
testplzignore
"Horrible virus used to cure xxx disease ends up destroying humanity" is
becoming a common trope in fiction. Rise of the Planet of the Apes, The
Passage, etc.

Fiction hasn't been accurate at predicting good things in the future, but it
sure has been spot on when predicting the bad stuff. It feels like we're
living in one of those frustrating horror films where the protagonists ignore
obvious warning signs and put themselves in the worst possible situations.

------
erikig
For those that prefer primary sources the original paper from Oct 2018 is
available at PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) here:
[https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2018/10/30/181066411...](https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2018/10/30/1810664115.full.pdf)

~~~
sctb
Thanks! We've updated the link from
[https://www.healthfoodis.com/2019/01/researchers-have-
identi...](https://www.healthfoodis.com/2019/01/researchers-have-identified-
virus-that.html).

~~~
epaga
Not sure that was the best move since it's now a paper full of deeply
technical terms, hard to understand what it's even saying...

~~~
sctb
That's fair, but on the other hand Hacker News readers often lament the state
of science journalism. Is there something in the middle between the originally
submitted lightweight article and the actual paper?

------
gelo
This does not seam like a legitimate article. This is most likely fake news.
The website cant even spell Nutrition right.

~~~
rat9988
You should have at least looked at the reference section before criticizing.

