Genetic engineering turns a common plant into a cancer fighter

[HuckleB]

http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2015/09/genetic-engineering-turns-common-plant-cancer-fighter

"Notch another victory for synthetic biology. Researchers report today that they’ve engineered a common laboratory plant to produce the starting material for a potent chemotherapy drug originally harvested from an endangered Himalayan plant. The new work could ensure an abundant supply of the anticancer drug and make it easier for chemists to tweak the compound to come up with safer and more effective versions.

Throughout history, people have relied on plants for medicines. Even modern drugmakers get about half their new drugs from plants. But that’s harder to do when plants are slow growing and endangered, as is the Himalayan mayapple (Podophyllum hexandrum). The short, leafy plant was the original source of podophyllotoxin, a cytotoxic compound that’s the starting point for an anticancer drug called Etoposide. The drug has been on the U.S. market since 1983 and is used to treat dozens of different cancers, from lymphoma to lung cancer. Today, podophyllotoxin is mainly harvested from the more common American mayapple. But this plant is also slow growing, producing only small quantities of the compound.

Mayapples churn out podophyllotoxin to defend against would-be munchers. To do so, the plants use a step-by-step approach to synthesize their chemical defense. But because the synthetic pathway of the compound had never been worked out, no one knew precisely which genes were involved in stitching together the molecule. What researchers did know was that podophyllotoxin isn’t always present in the plant. “It’s only when the leaf is wounded that the molecule is made,” says Elizabeth Sattely, a chemical engineer at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, who led the current research effort.

Sattely and her graduate student Warren Lau reasoned that the podophyllotoxin-building proteins were likely themselves only made by the plant in response to an injury. So the pair made tiny punctures in the leaves of healthy Himalayan mayapples provided to them by a commercial nursery, testing them before and after to see which new proteins appeared around the damaged tissue. They discovered 31, which they categorized by probable function.

..."


Good news, indeed.

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. Science...

Not mad science.

[HuckleB]

2. On edit:

[Agnosticsherbet]

3. Perhaps I should have said, "Real Science, not mad science."

Just one words would have made it clearer.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

9. science without religion is lame

this science is just a mad rush for money

[Agnosticsherbet]

10. I perfer to take my science straight up

Science poured over the rocks of religion waters down both.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

13. one of the many way you differ from Albert Einstein

I listen to real scientist - not corporate shills

[Orrex]

15. One sure way to tell when someone has nothing to say

Is when they rely on that Einstein quote without understand what it means or what he meant.


Thanks for removing all doubt.

[SidDithers]

17. Woo woo credo #36...

Quote Einstein, and do so often. Quote things he said if possible, but Einstein has been dead for ages now and so it's permissible to bring him up to date. Change the odd word here and there to make it clear that Einstein would have supported your argument if only he knew what you know. Act as if any arbitrary Einstein quote supports your position.

http://www.insolitology.com/tests/credo.htm

Sid

[SoLeftIAmRight]

19. There are some clowns on this board that are so very easy

lol

[HuckleB]

21. You mean you refer to science you don't like as that of "corporate shills."

That's not really listening to real scientists. It's just choosing to ignore the science you don't like.

Ethics matter.

[HuckleB]

23. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Oh, and

Oh, and you do know that ethics really do matter, right?

No, really. They do.

[HuckleB]

27. Awww. That's cute. Thanks for the kick.

Luckily, I don't believe in religion, so I won't see you in ... well, I wouldn't, anyway, because I practice an ethical life.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

28. the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles

You advocate for the most unethical causes I can imagine.

Seems you are failing in your endeavor.

[HuckleB]

32. No, I don't. I advocate for ethical choices, using evidence.

You can pretend otherwise, but you are wrong, and you will continue to be wrong.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

33. what is an ethical choice

explain your thought process for making an ethical choice

[HuckleB]

34. I've done so, repeatedly.

One part of it is always questioning myself, making sure I'm not blindly following beliefs. Making the consensus of evidence supports the things I support. If it does not, I look into the reasons why, and I adjust my views.

I don't simply fall for cliches that are unsupportable, just because they sound good. Doing so often leads one to act against the planet and its inhabitants. It makes no sense.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

35. It looks as if there is no philosophical rigor to your ethics

Life on earth is much more complex than we are able to measure - our choices at best are made by too quickly halting the exploration of possible consequences.

you seem to me to be a person that does not consider a wide enough and or deep enough consideration of the ethics of your positions.

Your "cancer cures" cost much more money to save far fewer people than would basic services provided elsewhere.

Check your ethics

[HuckleB]

37. Oh, goodness. You think your choice to ignore most evidence means something.

It doesn't. You just throw out generalities that have no actual meaning like "philosophical rigor," "life on earth is more complex than we are able to measure," etc... it's all pseudoscience babble. It's meaningless. Try to actually challenge yourself rather than make excuses for your unsupportable beliefs, then you can get back to me.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

39. you ignore reality

talking with you is a waste of good time

DUUY

[HuckleB]

40. I don't ignore reality, and that's what bothers you.

You think you can post nonsense and convince someone that it has meaning. I'm sure it works with some people, but it doesn't mean you should be doing it.

PS:

Here's your quote from your first post on this thread.

"science without religion is lame ... this science is just a mad rush for money"

Neither of those items have anything to do with reality.

Hmm.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

47. Reality - Science - Ethics

Science and ethics???

Science brings us plastics and we get


Science brings the oil and we get



Science brings us nuclear energy and we get



Science brings us a new drug and we get



23 June 2015

France - jellyfish gene lamb added to food chain.

13 May 2015

Czech Republic - unauthorised genetically modified papaya

24 April 2015

Italy - unauthorised rice from China

24 March 2015

Finland - illegal papaya in fruit smoothies from Poland and India

27 February 2015

Germany - genetically modified red yeast extract imported from China

24 January 2015

South Korea - unauthorised feral GM corn and cotton found growing in South Korea.

December 2014: New addition for 2010

South Africa - contamination of local maize varieties in Eastern Cape.

December 2014

Switzerland - genetically modified rapeseed still growing wild

4 December 2014

UK - unauthorised genetically modified (Bacillus subtilis) bacteria in vitamin B2 from China

16 October 2014

Italy - unauthorised genetically modified cotton seed from Côte d'Ivoire

6 October 2014

Germany - unauthorised Vitamin B2 produced from GM micro-organism

19 September 2014

China - suspends imports of corn products from USA.

1 September 2014

Belgium - Bt176 maize in popcorn from Argentina

27 August 2014

Belgium - contaminated rice noodles from China.

14 August 2014

Norway - unauthorised papaya from Thailand

8 August 2014

China - hunt for illegally grown GM crops

22 July 2014

Germany - more unauthorised rice flour from China.

25 June 2014

Slovenia - genetically modified rice cakes from China.

20 June 2014

Germany - unauthorised fresh papaya from Thailand.

21 May 2014

South Africa - unlabelled GM soya found in bread products.

10 April 2014

The Netherlands - contaminated papaya from the United States.

10 April 2014

Spain - Bt63 rice found in choline chloride animal feed additive

10 April 2014

Belgium - Bt63 rice found in choline chloride animal feed additive.

8 April 2014

France - Bt63 rice found in choline chloride animal feed additive.

31 March 2014

Cyprus - Bt63 rice found in choline chloride animal feed additive.

20 March 2014

The Netherlands - Bt63 rice in choline chloride animal feed additive

20 March 2014

Ireland - Bt63 rice found in choline chloride animal feed additive

17 March 2014

Germany - Bt63 rice found in choline chloride animal feed additive.

13 March 2014

Bulgaria - Bt63 rice found in choline chloride animal feed additive.

13 March 2014

UK - Bt63 rice in choline chloride animal feed additive.

[HuckleB]

52. Thanks for proving my point, again.

You think that an out-of-context Gish Gallop has some validity for something. It only shows how vacant your propaganda actually is. You repeatedly push unethical propaganda with no context.

This list is meaningless. And bizarre. And we could easily play "name that logical fallacy" with your post all day long.

In other words, you really don't get it. (Anyone can make such lists. They tell you nothing. How about a list of pseudoscience scams? Of anti-GMO lies? Of climate change denial nonsense? Of anti-vaccine lies? On and on and on, it could go. And it's not how ethics or science is done because it's not how logic and science work.)

[Hoyt]

53. Science brought you antibiotics, vaccines, xrays, electricity, pacemakers, antivirals,and much more.

[AlbertCat]

63. "Science" didn't "bring" us any of those things.

Industry and manufacturing.... and greed.... did.

"Science" is a methodology for investigating phenomenon. "Science" is not making and distributing plastic bottles and gasoline.


But religious people are often confused from atrophied reasoning skills.

[Lordquinton]

55. Tell us Einstein's thoughts on Genetic Engineering

Take your time and cite your sources.

[AlbertCat]

62. I listen to real scientist

Uh... Einstein is a product of the 19th century, when he grew up, and the early 20th century. He speaks in those idioms. So while you're listening, be sure to remember it's from centuries past. Yes, the science may be brilliant and ahead of its time and all true, but it is still presented to the early 20th century public in their idiom....y'know, because it was the early 20th century.

That's why when Lawrence Krauss (a 21st century scientist) says "...and when he (Einstein) said "god", he didn't mean God" I understand what Krauss means.

[MattBaggins]

14. Religion is lame

Science is better without mixing in nonsense

[Major Nikon]

56. .

[Orrex]

16. Religion with or without science is lame

[SidDithers]

18. Religion is an insult to human dignity - Steven Weinberg...nt

Sid

[HuckleB]

20. Prove it.

How dare they find treatments for cancer, save the papaya, and work to keep from blindness and death.

Oh, wait. Religion? What?

[HuckleB]

24. I guess we'll be waiting for proof for a long time. Hmm.

[progressoid]

29. "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression & product of human weaknesses"

In the letter, he states: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

Einstein, who was Jewish and who declined an offer to be the state of Israel's second president, also rejected the idea that the Jews are God's favoured people.

"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."

[SoLeftIAmRight]

48. Very very good

Einstein makes a clear divide between the idea of religious thought and concepts of god.

[progressoid]

49. That is exactly what he is not doing.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

50. I suggest you read the 4 essays in his book Ideas and Opinions - Science /Religion

then you will see how wrong you are...

[AlbertCat]

58. science without religion is lame

No.


science without religion is.... science.

[PasadenaTrudy]

4. Science is..

"Science is the poetry of reality."

[HuckleB]

5. Very nice. I love it. -eom-

[PasadenaTrudy]

8. From this..

Symphony of Science. Love this series!

[HuckleB]

25. +1,000,000 ... 000

[mopinko]

6. that cant be right. genetic engineering is always bad.

i read it right here on du.

[Deadshot]

7. But, but, but...GMOs are bad! Evil! Owned by Monsanto!

[pnwmom]

11. Great. And that also means that GE could turn a common plant into a cancer producer.

It works both ways.

All GE's and GM's aren't created equal. Each should be determined to be safe -- by the FDA, not by the producer -- before being approved.

[quaker bill]

30. No work is needed

many common plants are quite toxic in their natural, organic, free range state. Many of the most toxic substances known to science are natural, organic, and non-GMO. In fact there is a field of research out there to find them, as this is where most chemotherapy agents come from. By far and away most plants that grow naturally in any local landscape are toxic and inedible, and some are toxic in the extreme.

But yes, it is true that GE can make a plant more toxic, and I agree that lots of independent testing should happen before human consumption.

[mike_c]

51. in principle, I suppose that's possible...

...but why would anyone ever do so? And what does the remote possibility that someone might engineer a plant to become more carcinogenic have to do with the ethics of producing a GMO that expresses the precursor to an anti-cancer drug?

[Rex]

12. My tiny brain is having a hard time with this one.

So it is a synthetic plant grown in a lab? At the rate we want it to?

[mike_c]

54. the researchers inserted genes for the enzymes that make podophyllotoxin into...

...a tobacco relative that's fast growing and easy to cultivate. The natural sources of those enzymes are rare, endangered, and slow growing, so harvesting the chemical from its natural source is difficult and expensive. Now it can be churned out by a much faster growing, common plant. It can be grown anywhere there is sufficient light, moisture, and nutrients. When the plant is harvested, it is processed to extract the podophyllotoxin.

[Rex]

57. I see, thanks for explaining it to me.

So they created a new plant life. Amazing.

[mike_c]

61. not really, although that's a common misunderstanding....

Genes represent stored information. Inserting a new gene into an existing plant's genome doesn't make a new plant species any more than putting a new book on the shelf makes a new library.

There are several ways that we define a "species," none of which is completely satisfying or absolute, i.e. they all have conspicuous exceptions, but the most commonly applied definition is that organisms belong to the same species if they can breed with one another and produce viable offspring. It's hard to apply to fossil organisms and impossible for separating species of asexual organisms, but it works well enough in this case. If the resulting engineered tobacco relative is still capable of breeding with "wild type" individuals without the inserted gene, then the GMO is not a new species. Instead it's still the original species-- it just has the genetic information needed to produce an additional medicinal compound. There's no reason to think that the GMO in this case is reproductively distinct from it's parent species.

Numerous pharmaceuticals are produced this way. For example insulin, which used to be harvested from pigs-- requiring the death of the pigs to get their pancreas-- is now produced in large quantities by GMO microbes. Doing so doesn't make them a different or new species, however.

[GoneOffShore]

31. And the goats on fire brigade will appear shortly.

Oh noes! GMO's!

[RiverLover]

36. Great news, BigPharma can now make a common chemo drug more cheaply.

And using tobacco leaves! Good for them. It really is very cool.

But I wonder if the cost savings will be passed on to patients?

(This does nothing to negate the damage done by massive GMOs in our fields and food supply. I wish it could)

[HuckleB]

38. In other words, you're going to keep pushing fiction-based fear about GMOs.

I don't think anyone is surprised.

[RiverLover]

42. Yes, the New England Journal of Medicine & I are pushing fears not facts

The New England Journal of Medicine Asks FDA to Reconsider Labeling GMO Foods

[HuckleB]

44. An opinion piece by an individual does not represent the NEJM.

And posting it through a veil of a piece by Mark Hyman is just a bit interesting.

http://www.science20.com/alan_levinovitz/when_the_clintons_doctor_embraces_pseudoscience-152951

You completely proved my point here. Thanks!

[RiverLover]

45. I know you have trouble distinguishing, but it is a FACT that New England Journal of Med

wants GMOs labeled due to harming the environment and people.

The vast majority of the corn and soybeans grown in the United States are now genetically engineered. Foods produced from GM crops have become ubiquitous. And unlike regulatory bodies in 64 other countries, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not require labeling of GM foods.

Two recent developments are dramatically changing the GMO landscape. First, there have been sharp increases in the amounts and numbers of chemical herbicides applied to GM crops, and still further increases — the largest in a generation — are scheduled to occur in the next few years. Second, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified glyphosate, the herbicide most widely used on GM crops, as a “probable human carcinogen”1 and classified a second herbicide, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), as a “possible human carcinogen.”2

You are embarrassing yourself.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1505660

[HuckleB]

46. Anti-GMOer Benbrook's opinion piece DOES NOT represent the NEJM.

How do you fail to understand that a publication does not support everything that is published in it?

GMOs, Herbicides, and the New England Journal of Medicine
http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2015/08/gmos-herbicides-and-the-new-england-journal-of-medicine/

The Dying Gasp Of Chuck Benbrook's Credibility
http://www.science20.com/science_20/the_dying_gasp_of_chuck_benbrooks_credibility-156906

Anti-GMO in the NEJM
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/anti-gmo-in-the-nejm/

Why would you repeat a claim that is clearly not true?

[Major Nikon]

59. An opinion piece written by a 3rd party constitutes the official position of the NEJM?

You are embarrassing yourself.

Meanwhile this actually IS the official position of the AMA...

“there is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods, as a class, and that voluntary labeling is without value unless it is accompanied by focused consumer education.”

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/21/news/la-heb-gmo-foods-medical-association-20120620

[BlueJazz]

41. Damn it! Somebody has to say the worn-out line: I welcome our Plant Overlords.

[Lancero]

43. That's impossiable...

I mean, I swore I saw people here within the last couple of weeks saying that GMO's only cause cancer, they can't help cure it.

[JudyM]

64. So many medicinal plants... And so little time before they fall into our commercial paths

Of destruction.

Asian mushrooms also fight cancer but there's no synthesizing to do so it barely gets into the news.

[HuckleB]

65. There are a lot of such claims, but few are supported by strong evidence.

If you have valid, peer-reviewed evidence over time showing such a thing as being valid, I'd love to see it.

[JudyM]

66. That's largely a function of the economics of scientific review.

Probably don't need to say more than if no one's going to make a large profit from a natural product it's unlikely to be well studied, particularly because publicly funded or conducted research is limited.

Problem of course is separating wheat from the chaff with anecdotal or smaller study evidence. There are a number of natural remedies I believe are worth checking out ... Such as Asian mushrooms for cancer and boosting t-cells (this is written up more in Japanese journals than western ones), puerh tea for lowering blood pressure, elderberry for fighting off common cold type viruses, turmeric for all types of inflammation and possibly dementia... Problem is finding a balanced source for literature reviews rather than relying on collecting it all yourself... I rely heavily on PubMed.

I look forward to the wider availability of integrative medicine physicians in the future... that is IMO so sorely needed because our mainstream med schools are churning out docs who are trained fairly narrowly when it comes to alternative and preventive therapies. And then proceed to be "educated" (and of course groomed) through the rest of their careers primarily by pharma reps.

[HuckleB]

67. No, it's not.

It's because these things have been explored, and plausibility matters. Unfortunately, alt med pushers have their scam tale to tell, and its all too convincing to those who don't see behind the curtain.