NANO BOMBS AND MATRYOSHKA DOLLS

Linda in Bangkok?

She never was east of Egypt

Where is this, anyway?

From time to time I have urged – even (quite rudely, I admit) ordered - you to read certain cancer-related stories in The Economist.  Well, as my primitive computer skills gradually mature I have discovered that I can just give you a link and let you read the thing yourself – if you feel like it.  I read The Economist while eating breakfast, so – as you read the link – you are to imagine it covered with bacon grease and egg yolk.  I used to donate my magazines to the nearest doctor’s office, but increasingly they are so disgusting I just throw them away instead.  Anyway, here is a link to the story I am about to write about:

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21588839-three-layered-chemical-bombs-may-destroy-previously-untreatable-cancers-medical

The article talks about triple-negative breast cancer.  Note immediately:  it is misleading.  Most triple negative breast cancers are, contrary to the title of this story, treatable.  Some are aggressive and nasty, but others are as treatable as any other breast cancer.  Promising research is underway to develop new therapies, and here is a convenient link if you want to follow this up:

http://www.breastcancer.org/symptoms/diagnosis/trip_neg/new_research

I am optimistic about several of these approaches, but especially about using PARP inhibitors.  PARP is a molecule that assists in repairing damaged DNA.  Cancers have DNA too, just the wrong kind.  Chemo and radiation therapies may damage the cancer DNA, and “inhibiting” the PARP keeps the damage permanent.  Ergo, the cancer cell croaks.  Good riddance. 

Exploring this web site would be a useful exercise. 

Anyway, “triple negative” means that the cell lacks “receptors” for two kinds of hormones, estrogen and progesterone.  Also absent are receptors for something called HER2.  Lacking these three kinds of receptors, cancer cannot be attacked with hormone therapy.  But, I emphasize, other treatments are possible and often quite effective.   

The Economist article describes the research of a chemical engineer, Dr. Paula Hammond of MIT, aimed at countering the effect of triple-negative-hood.  She has developed a tiny chemical “bomb”, consisting of three layers.  The outer layer is stuff that is attracted to cancer cells.  The second layer is composed of things called siRNA.   A siRNA is a short double-strand of RNA whose purpose in life is to interfere with the process of making some sorts of protein.  Naturally, the particular siRNA that Dr. Hammond uses is targeted: it prevents birth of a protein necessary to expel chemo drugs from the cell.  Then, not surprisingly, the core of this tiny “bomb” is a chemo drug!  Oh, by the way, Dr. Hammond’s missile is only a few millionth of a millimeter in diameter.  That's what Nano means.

So, anyway, her tiny bombs seem to work on mice.  Maybe someday they will work on humans.

Terms that may cause you to scratch your head as you read this article:

siRNA stands for small interfering ribonucleic acid.  They help regulate gene expression.

Matryoshka doll.  Most of us think of these things as Babyoshka dolls; Russian dolls that have smaller dolls inside them, and so forth.

As I write this I am still waiting to meet my first great grandson, Seamus.  He is taking his own sweet time putting in an appearance, the lazy little bugger!