Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Saturday July 06 2019, @10:05PM   Printer-friendly
from the unusual-results dept.

Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956

Antioxidants, once touted as a cancer preventive, may actually spur the disease's spread. Now scientists have figured out how.

Whether taken as a dietary supplement or produced by the body, antioxidants appear to help lung cancer cells invade tissues beyond the chest cavity, two studies report online June 27 in Cell. Experiments in mice and human tissue revealed that antioxidants both safeguard tumors against cell-damaging molecules and prompt the accumulation of the protein Bach1. As Bach1 piles up, tumors burn through glucose at higher rates, thus fueling the cancer cells' migration to new organs (SN: 1/9/16, p. 13).

"The results provide a new mechanism for how lung cancer cells can spread and may lead to new possibilities for treatment," says Martin Bergö, a molecular biologist at the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm who led one of the new studies.

[...] Bergö and his colleagues had previously found that supplement doses of antioxidants accelerate primary tumor growth in mice, and clinical trials have unearthed similar results in humans. Now knowing how antioxidants exacerbate cancer, scientists may be able to undermine the mechanism with drugs that inhibit Ho1, block Bach1 production or prevent glycolysis, the glucose-guzzling process that fuels tumors. Ho1 inhibitors are already U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved to treat inherited disorders called porphyrias, and could potentially be repurposed to fight cancer.

"Understanding why some cancers metastasize and some don't is one of the biggest problems in lung cancer right now," says Roy Herbst, a medical oncologist at Yale Cancer Center.

Recognizing this newfound pathway as a "potent promoter of metastasis" could help doctors develop new treatments, identify which tumors to treat aggressively and better advise patients about taking vitamin supplements, Herbst says. "This pathway could be explored in other tumor types — this will definitely have some impact on the field."

Source: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/antioxidants-lung-cancer-spread-prevent


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by black6host on Sunday July 07 2019, @12:11AM (3 children)

    by black6host (3827) on Sunday July 07 2019, @12:11AM (#863977) Journal

    It's long been known that living kills. We have tons of evidence. I've given up on worrying too much, I'm going to enjoy myself with what time I have left. Certainly less that what I have under my belt, that's for sure. Coffee is good, coffee is bad, burgers are good, burgers are bad. (I'm not buying that one, burgers are always good!) Wine is good, bad and then good again. Same with beer. Vitamins... Etc.

    Think I'll just live my life, within reason, and carry on...

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 07 2019, @12:16AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 07 2019, @12:16AM (#863978)

    You sound like a triggered sexist and racist. Just can't stand to have someone with names like Bergö and Michele doing science?

    • (Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 07 2019, @12:18AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 07 2019, @12:18AM (#863980)

      /s

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday July 07 2019, @05:10AM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday July 07 2019, @05:10AM (#864034) Journal

      If Bergö and Michele were doing real science, we'd all be cool. As has been pointed out, maybe this study wasn't "real science"? Study after study passes through Soylent's purview, only to be dismissed for sample size, lack of control, and/or funding sources. I recall commenting on one story in which the "scientists" pretty openly admitted they had their preconceived ideas, and they were using the "study" to validate their ideas.

      Apparently, you have issues with the names of the scientists. I submitted this story, and gave zero attention to the names of the people doing the study.

      Saving grace for this particular study?

      two studies report online June 27 in Cell.

      When TWO (or more) studies agree, the odds that they are right, and that their results are reproducible increases. Solitary studies are always suspect.