Print 12 comment(s) - last by jimhsu.. on Feb 18 at 2:17 PM

The discovery of WWP2 could lead to new drug advancements within the next decade  (Source:
Could lead to the development of new drugs for aggressive cancers within the next decade

University of East Anglia researchers may have found a way to prevent the spread of cancer through the discovery of a rogue gene. 

Andrew Chantry, study leader from the University of East Anglia's School of Biological Sciences, and Dr. Surinder Soond, of the University of East Anglia, have discovered a rogue gene that, if blocked by proper medication, could prevent the spread of cancer

The discovery of the rogue gene came about when the team of researchers was studying 'Smads,' which are natural cancer cell inhibitors in the human body. 

The rogue gene is called WWP2, and it is an enzymic bonding agent. It is found within cancer cells and helps the spread of cancer by attacking Smads in the human body, which are supposed to stop the spread of cancer. 

"The late stages of cancer involve a process known as metastasis - a critical phase in the progression of the disease that cannot currently be treated or prevented," said Chantry. "The challenge now is to identify a potent drug that will get inside cancer cells and destroy the activity of the rogue gene. This is a difficult but not impossible task, made easier by the deeper understanding of the biological processes revealed in this study."

In the lab, researchers found that the levels of the natural inhibitor increased when WWP2 was blocked. This caused the cancer cells to remain dormant. 

Chantry and Soond hope this research leads to the development of drugs that can block WWP2. This would allow Smads to prevent the spread of cancer, and doctors could perform surgery on primary tumors without worrying about the spread of the disease.  

According to Chantry, these drugs could be developed within the next decade, taking researchers one step closer to success in the war on cancer. They're aiming to stop the spread of some of the most aggressive cancers such as brain, colon, skin and breast cancer

This study was published in Oncogene.

Comments     Threshold


RE: Lets see
By Kurz on 1/24/2011 1:00:24 PM , Rating: 3
I know about the FDA and all their manipulative programs. Limiting citizen's options when it comes to their health/life.

Sorry the FDA's track record is poor. I rather see something like a UL label on drugs rather than see a FDA label. At least with a third party, I have the choice to take the drug even though its not approved.

RE: Lets see
By drycrust3 on 1/24/2011 1:57:38 PM , Rating: 3
Limiting citizen's options when it comes to their health/life.

It is easy to have a cavalier attitude like this when we and our loved ones are healthy, but when we and our loved ones have a condition which will terminate their life earlier than expected, or handicap their life, or even they just need relief from some severe bout of illness, then our cavalier attitude ... may become a curse and not a saviour.
Like it or not, most of us aren't pharmaceutical experts, so even if we are told every chemical in a drug and its percentage, that is meaningless to us. The only thing that is meaningful is will it help or not. Every good government has an interest in ensuring that the drugs sold will work as claimed, the conditions needed for each drug to work successfully, and the things to avoid doing.
Maybe the government could have done things differently and still got the same result while spending less taxpayers money, but maybe that process would also have cost more taxpayers money in other ways. Like it or not, the process they have is the one that, for whatever reason, is the one they have.

RE: Lets see
By Kurz on 1/24/2011 4:32:48 PM , Rating: 2
'Good Government' what constitutes good?
I believe much more good will come from allowing you to choose what you put in your own body.

You can still have the FDA approval however it shouldn't stop you from taking a drug. Infact thousands of products are tested by the Underwriters lab every year. They stand by their work of testing it. If no one trusted UL then no one would trust your brand. Then you would have to find another third party to test your product.

Btw who is to say government and their employee's have more incentive to care what happens more than the people you are buying the drug from? Drug companies are not perfect, every drug has a chance to hurt you. The biggest threat to drug companies are Class action/personal lawsuits, if enough people get together and file claims against them it:

first damages their brand for future business
second all the money they have to pay out to injured people from their product.

Thats the reason we have a court system LETS USE IT and stop wasting lives and billions of dollars for nothing.

RE: Lets see
By BSMonitor on 1/25/2011 10:38:23 AM , Rating: 2
"'Good Government' what constitutes good?

So TRUST the guy trying to sell you something instead??

Funny how you types distrust the government so, but place all your trust in someone trying to make money off of you..

RE: Lets see
By Kurz on 1/25/2011 12:14:54 PM , Rating: 2
Why would you trust an entity that has monopolistic control over much of your day to day life? An entity that actively limits your choices to suit the interests of those that lobby the best for laws that don't do anything, but make life worse for the common man?

At least the person selling to you if he wants to continue to have an income must meet your needs. Of course there will always be fraud, there would be less fraud if there was more choices and more competition in an economic system.

Fraud happens to you every day in the terms of government protected monopolies, inflation tax, taxes in general that takes your money to pay towards governments own interests.

Your BS monitor is off my friend.

