Linda and Kiley Henner
Hippy Era
Now, here’s one for serious people only.
If you are like me you always have assumed that cancer is
the result of a mutation somewhere, in one or more genes. These guys say that’s not precisely true. They have been studying the effects of an “imbalance”
of two proteins as a driver of certain types of cancer, including mucinous ovarian
cancer. The two proteins are “plc-gamma-1”,
and “grab-2” (hereafter p and g). These
two proteins have a controlling influence on one of these things called “pathways”;
in this instance a pathway called AKT. AKT
tells a cell to proliferate. In the case
of the “right” balance between p and g, AKT is kept within healthy bounds –
cancer does not develop. However, if p
predominates, AKT goes wild.
So, why does the balance get upset? Apparently it isn’t owing to a mutation of
the genes responsible for either p or g; they checked for that. So, in the words of the King of Siam, “Tis a
puzzlement”. I have read the article a
couple of times, and I can’t detect that the authors (from Leeds, England and
MD Anderson in Texas) have resolved the puzzle.
I offer a suggestion:
Maybe the concentrations of p and g both fluctuate randomly,
within certain limits and with (possibly) different time scales. It might happen, then, that p (which promotes
proliferation) hits a maximum just at the time that g (which discourages
proliferation) arrives at a minimum.
Result: imbalance. And if the
imbalance is large enough and last long enough, AKT does its thing and causes
cancer. This is modeled on how rocks
acquire a viscous remanent magnetization, for all you geoscience freaks out
there.
Whatever. Anyway, it
would seem that the p to g ratio could be used as a biomarker for cancer, and
that injections of g should slow or halt some kinds of them. No doubt I’m missing something.
More on "non-genetic" cancer, equally difficult to follow. Try anyway, it's good for you.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.science20.com/news_articles/nongenetic_cancer_mechanism_found-156672