JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Books

Cure cancer with weaponized bacteria that do mass “suicide bombing” at the right site?

Bacteria multiply.

Bacteria multiply

In the West we could try to cure cancer faster with research like this, or we could pour billions into making expensive electricity to try to cool the world by 0.01°C for our grandchildren.  Hmm. What to do? Which activity is more likely to make citizens richer, happier and more productive?

In this approach (below) bacteria are engineered to find cancer cells, make lots of baby bacteria until they reach a large enough colony size then do a mass self-destructo at the cancer site — releasing a tumor killing drug. A few bacteria survive the micro-apocalypse and they start another round. So far, the researchers haven’t cured any cancers, but they can shrink cancers in mice and extend mousy lives by 50%. One day this might mean cancers can be “lived with”, if not actually destroyed completely.

Bacteria, quorum, explode, lysis.

A critical mass is reached and the colony “bombs”.

So the bacteria can be engineered into neat little machines to manage cancer. But they are still living creatures, so are messy machines. One problem is that evolution tends to make all living machines chuck out bits of DNA that don’t improve survival, so the “survivors” will gradually take over, lose the special engineered addons, and not be so obedient. This approach is not guaranteed to be the right answer. Nonetheless, this sort of research may keep a loved one alive, make a company a lot richer, contribute more tax dollars, save on public health budgets, etc etc.

For perspective,  Australia has a $2.4b Emissions Reductions Fund (which is used to make expensive electrons with inefficient solar panels and such-like that the market would not buy otherwise). As a nation we spend about $900m on medical research each year total.

It doesn’t have to be this way. We could double medical research, and halve electricity costs, and have a tax cut.
– Jo

_______________

Synthetic biology used to limit bacterial growth and coordinate drug release

[Sciencedaily] UC San Diego researchers led by Jeff Hasty, a professor of bioengineering and biology, engineered a clinically relevant bacterium to produce cancer drugs and then self-destruct and release the drugs at the site of tumors.

Researchers at the University of California San Diego and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have come up with a strategy for using synthetic biology in therapeutics. The approach enables continual production and release of drugs at disease sites in mice while simultaneously limiting the size, over time, of the populations of bacteria engineered to produce the drugs. The findings are published in the July 20 online issue of Nature.

UC San Diego researchers led by Jeff Hasty, a professor of bioengineering and biology, engineered a clinically relevant bacterium to produce cancer drugs and then self-destruct and release the drugs at the site of tumors. The team then transferred the bacterial therapy to their MIT collaborators for testing in an animal model of colorectal metastasis. The design of the therapy represents a culmination of four previous Naturepapers from the UC San Diego group that describe the systematic development of engineered genetic clocks and synchronization. Over the years, the researchers have employed a broad approach that spans the scales of synthetic biology.

The new study offers a therapeutic approach that minimizes damage to surrounding cells.

“In synthetic biology, one goal of therapeutics is to target disease sites and minimize damage,” said UC San Diego bioengineering and biology professor Jeff Hasty. He wondered if a genetic “kill” circuit could be engineered to control a population of bacteria in vivo, thus minimizing their growth. “We also wanted to deliver a significant therapeutic payload to the disease site.”

In order to achieve this, he and his team synchronized the bacteria to release bursts of known cancer drugs when a bacterial colony self-destructs within the tumor environment. The use of bacteria to deliver cancer drugs in vivo is enticing because conventional chemotherapy doesn’t always reach the inner regions of a tumor, but bacteria can colonize there. Importantly, the researchers observed that the combination of chemotherapy and the gene products produced by the bacterial circuit consistently reduced tumor size.

“The new work by Jeff Hasty and team is a brilliant demonstration of how theory in synthetic biology can lead to clinically meaningful advances,” said Jim Collins, a professor at MIT who is known as a founder of the field of synthetic biology. “Over a decade ago during the early days of the field, Jeff developed a theoretical framework for synchronizing cellular processes across a community of cells. Now his team has shown experimentally how one can harness such effects to create a novel, clinically viable therapeutic approach.”

Limiting the bacterial population

In order to observe the bacterial population dynamics, the researchers designed custom microfluidic devices for careful testing before investigations in animal disease models. Consistent with the engineering design, they observed cycling of the bacterial population that successfully limits overall growth while simultaneously enabling production and release of encoded cargo. When the bacteria were equipped with a gene that drives production of a therapeutic, the synchronized lysis of the bacterial colony was shown to kill human cancer cells. It is the first engineered gene circuit in synthetic biology to achieve these objectives.

“In this paper, we describe a circuit that contains a gene that codes for a small molecule that can diffuse between cells and can turn on genes,” said Omar Din, the paper’s lead author and a UC San Diego Jacobs School of Engineering bioengineering Ph.D. student in Hasty’s research group. “Once the population grows to a critical size — a few thousand cells — there’s a high-enough concentration of that molecule present in the cells to cause mass transcription of the genes behind the promoter.”

The molecule, AHL, is known to coordinate gene expression across a colony of bacterial cells. Once on, the genes driven by the promoter are also activated, including the AHL-producing gene itself. Thanks to this positive feedback loop, the more AHL accumulates, the more it is produced. Because AHL is small enough to diffuse between cells and turn on the promoter in neighboring cells, the genes activated by it would also be produced in high amounts, leading to a phenomenon known as quorum sensing. Bacteria use quorum sensing to communicate with each other about the size of their population, and regulate gene expression accordingly. Scientists have used this natural ability of bacteria extensively as a tool.

Din used quorum sensing as an engineering tool to synchronize the cells and then added a kill gene that causes cells to break open (lyse) when a bacterial colony grows to a threshold. After the mass self-destruction event, a few cells remain to repopulate the colony and the resulting population dynamics are cyclical.

“The lysis circuit was originally conceived for use as an aquatic biosensor, but it subsequently became clear that an exciting application could be the coordinated release of drugs when bacteria lyse in vivo,” Hasty said.

Watch a video showing the programmed cycles of bacterial drug delivery.

Finding the right drug combination

Next, the researchers needed to find the right drug for delivery by the bacteria. They tested three different therapeutic proteins that had been shown to shrink tumors. The tests showed that the proteins were most effective when combined. They placed the genes responsible for these proteins in the circuit along with the lysis gene. They then conducted experiments with HeLa cells that showed enough protein was produced to kill cancer cells.

The testing of the therapy in mice was carried out by UC San Diego bioengineering alumnus Tal Danino while he was a postdoctoral researcher in Sangeeta Bhatia’s research group at MIT. Danino is now a professor at Columbia University.

The bacteria were first injected into mice with a grafted subcutaneous tumor. This mouse model was used to visualize the bacterial population in vivo and observe their dynamics. The result was a decrease in tumor size. Danino then used a more advanced mouse model with liver metastases, where bacteria were fed to the mice. After testing a combination of the engineered bacteria and chemotherapy with this model, the researchers found that the combined therapy prolonged survival of the mice over either therapy administered alone. The researchers note that this new approach has not yet cured any mice. They did find that the therapy led to around a 50 percent increase in life expectancy, but it’s difficult to anticipate how this would translate to humans. Taken together, the experiments in mice establish a proof-of-principle for using the tools of synthetic biology to engineer ‘tumor-targeting’ bacteria to deliver therapeutic proteins in vivo.

Developing a strategy

The new Nature paper shows the use of quorum sensing to limit bacterial population growth and release drugs. In previousNature papers, the Hasty lab has shown how engineered cellular oscillations can be coordinated within a bacterial colony and even between thousands of interacting colonies.

“This paper describes a highly innovative strategy employing synthetic biology to weaponize bacteria,” said Bert Vogelstein, Director of the Ludwig Center at Johns Hopkins University and pioneer in the field of cancer genomics. “The authors show that these bacteria can be used to slow the growth of tumors growing in mice. Though much further work will be required to make this therapy applicable to humans, it’s just the kind of new, forward-thinking approach that we desperately need if we are to more effectively combat cancer.”

Next possible steps include investigating the natural presence of bacteria in tumors and then engineering these bacteria for use in vivo and using multiple strains of bacteria to form a therapeutic community.

“Additionally, we are currently investigating methods for maintaining the circuit inside bacteria,” said Din. “Since the proteins produced by the circuit put a burden on the bacteria, the bacteria are prone to mutate these genes. Additionally, there is a selection pressure to get rid of the plasmids which harbor the genes comprising the circuit. Thus, one of our future research aims is to identify strategies for stabilizing the circuit components in bacteria and decreasing their susceptibility to mutations.”

Press Release

Reference:

M. Omar Din et al (2016) Synchronized cycles of bacterial lysis for in vivo deliveryNature, 2016; DOI: 10.1038/nature18930

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (41 votes cast)
Cure cancer with weaponized bacteria that do mass "suicide bombing" at the right site?, 9.5 out of 10 based on 41 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/zzchnut

31 comments to Cure cancer with weaponized bacteria that do mass “suicide bombing” at the right site?

  • #
    Yonniestone

    This is always fascinating stuff that Jo correctly places as a priority over climate-alchemy.

    Our work colleague who is facing his mortality in the final stage of liver cancer would have appreciated monies invested in improving humanity instead of misleading it, even though he’s too nice a person to say it so I’ll say it for him.

    Sorry to lower the tone but it’s a bit sad.

    162

  • #
    Ross

    Yonniekeystone; It is Jo who has well and truly lowered the tone, here.
    All of the above breakthroughs are coming from American Universities. So no need to worry about Australian Tax dollars there.
    But it would be great if more money was spent on health and medical research.
    But don’t count on it. Conservative governments cares about public health the same way sharks look out for surfers.
    They do like tax cuts, though. And as the Business Council said when asked how the tax cuts would be funded…. Make cuts to Health and Education. But still not a mention of finding a cure for cancer. Go figure.

    515

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Ross,

      I think you have misread what Jo wrote. At least two thirds of her post is about the American research, and how it can be beneficial, in the medium term.

      Of course, Australian tax dollars will be necessary to administer the treatments required within Australia, and the first step in getting federal government funding, is to raise awareness of the treatment.

      People cannot lobby politicians for things that they (the people), don’t know about. Science blogs, like this, raise awareness. At least, I am now aware of it, so I am better informed than I was yesterday.

      I think you owe Jo an apology. She is doing what she does best.

      173

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Yeah Ross socialist governments are so much better at caring for their people aren’t they?

      The Venezuelan government has just opened their borders to let it’s starving people to scavenge for food in Columbia, how thoughtful!

      102

      • #
        Gee Aye

        Goodness, pick and choose examples. Cuban doctors are fantastic and recognised for their skill and I benefited from Cubans largesse from a Cuban sponsored medical team in TImor Leste.

        This does not mean system X is better than system Y. It is just an anecdote.

        45

  • #
    el gordo

    Alzheimer’s disease is a modern day scourge, but now they have Anavex and its a huge breakthrough.

    ‘The drug is designed to ­target the sigma-1 receptor cells that remove abnormal proteins from cells, but which can stop functioning effectively as people age.

    ‘By rebooting the process, the drug is hoped to clear the build-up of troublesome proteins believed responsible for neurodegenerative conditions.’

    Herald Sun

    50

  • #
    tom0mason

    Very interesting research.
    How strange though, to think of this “suicide bombing” in a positive light!

    50

  • #
    ROM

    I will declare an interest in commenting on this post of Jo’s

    Around 2010 and due to my Doc being a damn good one, I was diagnosed with one of the more aggressive types out of the four or so types of Prostate Cancer.
    So a course of daily radiation in Ballarat over a period of 6 weeks followed.
    Cured?
    Well I don’t know nor does my Prostate specialist as my PSA [ Prostate Specific Antigen ] numbers are again on the slow increase.

    Prostate cancer cells head to the bone marrow if they escape the original prostate cancer location.
    White blood cells, the body’s immune system and disease fighters are formed in the bone marrow.

    Now my White blood cell count is below normal and a few malformed White blood cells have been found in my blood sample, sometimes an indicator of the very early stages of Leukemia.

    So a few days ago a couple of core samples, literally, were taken from my pelvis bone marrow through a coring type device that only leaves a small puncture wound in the back and for me, no after effects.

    I will know the results of the bone marrow analysis probably tomorrow.

    I am not looking for sympathy as my time at 78 years old on this world is drawing to a close in any case but am just passing on information that may be of interest and perhaps of eventual use to somebody, some way here on Jo’s blog.

    Ten years ago nobody would have been able to identify any of my possible problems at such an early stage so I am grateful that I have lived to see such advances with many, many far more beneficial medical advances yet to come in the very near future.
    —————-
    But Jo raises another point in her post above, a point that is rarely ever commented on anywhere that I have come across.

    The bacteria and in other cancer and medical research, viruses, the largest of which is about the same size as the very smallest [ single cell ] bacteria, are all genetically modified to get those attributes needed to take on and hopefully eventually cure the innumerable numbers of diseases and afflictions that plague any assemblege of a few hundred millions of cells such as make up mankind and every other living complex life form.

    So we have the likes of Greenpeace and its members and executives and all those other whacko green organisations like the WWF , the Sierra Club and etc, all of whom are grossly anti GMO to the extent that they have been fighting the release of the life saving, Vitamin A reinforced Golden Rice in SE Asian rice eating areas for some 15 years now ever since the life saving and disease fighting Golden rice was first genetically modified using a Sunflower Gene and a gene from a very common soil bacteria in its genetic structure so as to incorporate the Vitamin A in the actual rice grains giving it a golden colour..
    Hence the name “Golden Rice” and I would recommend the easily read “Golden Rice Project” web pages to get some idea onwhat can only be described as the murderous outcomes that Greenpeace have inflicted so completely unnecessarily on millions of rice eaters, the poorest of poor in SE Asia and India due to their all out attempts to prevent the release of Golden Rice for over a decade past.

    Which raises the next point.

    As above, the use of genetically modified organisms have been fought in every possible manner by the so called environmental organisations such as Greenpeace, the WWF, the Sierra Club and etc and etc with an immense cost in lives amongst the poorest people on this planet as a consequence.

    So now that Genetically Modified bacteria and viruses are beginning to be developed to use in the fight and to cure some of mankind’s worst killer diseases, will Greenpeace, the WWF, the Sierra Club and all the elites of other anti GMO organisations along with their executives, their membership and their supporters give cast iron, publicly vouched guaranties that they will forgo ALL such cures involving Genetically modified organisms of any type for both themselves and their immediate families into the future and for as long as they shall live ?

    I would suggest that we are once again about to see gross hypocrisy writ very large indeed amongst the Greenpeace and WWF elites as the responsible and indirect killers of some millions of the poorest peoples on this planet when those organisations deliberately and arrogantly deprived those poor of the means to live lives that were much enriched and free of easily cured diseases just by eating a handful of Golden Rice each day.

    My true thoughts and opinions on Greenpeace and the WWF and the other similar environmental organisations and the despicable caricatures of sub human beings that inhabit such organisations are not fit to post here or anywhere else.

    191

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    All good comments above and for me a painful post.

    Ross??? Something really out of alignment there.

    The post points to what might have been right now if only those running western governments had put the billions into cancer research and not climate change.

    Sequestering CO2 just does not have any scientific point, and as many here have said, we need more of it in the air not less.

    Basic research on cancer would no doubt, be able to identify other breakthrough areas like the one described and eventually give higher survival rates.

    Sensible, forward thinking like this is sadly absent in our political leaders, you tend to expect it, but where is the scientific leadership from “scientific” organisations like our CSIRO.

    KK

    52

  • #
    ROM

    To hopefully add a bit more “Viral” grist to Jo’s ” bacteria” post.

    From; The New York Times [ March 2012 ]

    Viruses Recruited as Killers of Tumors

    Unlike the single celled Bacteria , viruses, the largest of which is about the same size as the smallest known bacteria, cannot replicate outside of a cell. Viruses enter a cell and then hijack the cell’s machinery to replicate large numbers of their viral clones which then break out of the cell walls and spread out infecting other cells and so repeating the performance all over again.

    Anti-biotics do not act against Viruses and viral infections protected as they are inside of the tough cell walls of the cell they have invaded and are replicating within.

    Some Viruses have been known to have a temporary effect on cancer cells since 1951 but how this viral effect on tumours can be modified to reliably attack just specific types of tumours and cancers has so far and until very recently, eluded researchers.

    This is now changing thanks to Craig Venter who in 2000 announced the sequencing of the entire human genome, a privately funded venture which despite starting well after the USA Government run and funded “Human Genome Project “, was at least three years ahead of that immensely costly Project when Venter announced he had achieved the sequencing of the human genome.

    Which probably tells us something along the lines that a  Government should set the scene legislatively for such research and then step right back and let the financiers and shareholders and researchers get on with it, risks and all.

    Such DNA and Gene sequencing technology is now advancing faster than the famous Moores Law in chip design and fabrication which is a doubling of the numbers of transistors on a single chip about every two years since integrated chips were first designed and created some half a century ago.

    This rapidly closing in on the ability to sequence each individual’s genetic characteristics in only a few hours at the most will lead to individually tailored drugs and individually genetically modified carriers of drugs and toxins to cancers, tumours , bone problems, COPD [ which I also have from very heavy dense dust from clover harvesting using rotary road brooms on dirt paddocks to sweep up clover and medic burrs for harvesting during my teen and twenties years ] and the whole gamut of other diseases and maladies and possibly mental problems that we humans seem destined to suffer from.

    The current Australian median age of death for men is 78.4 years and for women 84.6 years, somewhat behind the Japanese, the longest lived on this planet with a median age of death for men of 80.5 years and for women a median age of death at 86.83 years.

    There was and perhaps still is the largest concentration of oldsters over 100 years of age in the world living right here in Horsham in the Lutheran Rest Homes.
    They were going to set a Guinness world record for the most centarians in the one place but the $10,000 wanted by the Guinness outfit was a bit much and as well a lot of them thought they might be dead before the record got ratified by Guinness.

    So I sometimes now wonder just what is mankind’s finite lifetime, particularly when he / she can still lead a productive life and continue contributing to the society’s benefit.

    40

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Jo,

    I don’t want to be a wet blanket…but…nature tends to adapt and change with what man has intervened in many areas that are not good for our species…
    This trying to control nature has been a disaster as many science studies are usually created for a vested interest in mind rather than for good knowledge and researching to further our knowledge.
    You can’t totally control what you don’t totally understand as our species become bombarded with vast new chemicals being introduced everyday.

    If you backtrack our planets history which no one does to really understand evolution…our planet has always had a problem with overpopulation until something intervenes.
    Water/Oceans were vastly fresher and much more abundant as you look at the pressure and adaptation of chemical compounds to evolve.
    Just my opinion of course as no scientist can get any funding for looking at different avenues to the narrative that we are pumped up with.

    21

    • #
      Leo Morgan

      @ Joe Lalonde
      Hi Joe.
      Your viewpoint seems really strange to me. Maybe you know things I don’t? Maybe I’m just misinterpreting. Just possibly, you’re wrong.
      Could you please clarify what you mean with “nature tends to adapt and change with what man has intervened in many areas that are not good for our species…”(sic) Could you give specific examples?
      At the moment I wholeheartedly disagree with the idea that trying to control nature has been a disaster. On the contrary, it’s resulted in unprecedented health, longevity, food supplies, comforts and wealth. What leads you to the opposite opinion?
      I’m not sure what you mean by “…our species become bombarded by vast new chemicals being introduced every day”? Vast numbers, vast quantities, vast novelty? Nothing in nature is non-toxic; even pure water will kill you in excess- but what chemical(s) do you think are harming our entire species?
      I agree with your comment about overpopulation, but how do you come to the conclusion the oceans were more abundant in the past? And what exactly is the narrative you think we’re pumped with, and who’s doing the pumping, for what purpose?
      So yeah, I’m wholeheartedly in favour of the use of science to improve the human condition.

      40

      • #
        Joe Lalonde

        Hi Leo,

        Much of our education is speculative including using currency for trade with a country that controls it’s value and can manipulate the world to follow or be destroyed by the globalization experiment. No other species on this planet does this.
        Scientists believes that we have not lost a single drop of water since the planet was created and as such wrapped their theory around this decades ago even though our planet shows alot of meteor evidence that if you add water, displaces that horrific velocity impact by distributing this energy. Glaciers are suppose to change water directions of this planet…but…when mapping our planets different velocities to the suns energy, the water changes directions at the 48 degree latitudes.
        We do not include the suns exhaust that it MUST produce due to the energy it burns and produces…that energy is very strong with pressure, heat and orbital rotational velocities(sun is an orb too) at the sun and dissipates with distance. Planets are in rotational sequence to the sun.
        Land pressures on rocks is how it was determined for glaciation but never in consideration would be massive water pressure which also leave behind salts and many different deposits. Sand shows that to create this, you must have massive pressure along with a sudden cooling in order to get these fine crystallization which in magma on our current surface is quite elongated and less dense.
        When you have Ice, Rock and a piece of Sun in a collision and fusion…you get quite a different outlook where water evaporates and condenses the oceans to evolve chemical compositions into more complex structures.

        10

      • #
        Joe Lalonde

        Leo,

        Do you think fracking and atomics good for this planet and our species?
        Their is horrific consequences when they fail and pollute our finite resources.

        00

        • #
          Peter C

          Leo and Jo,

          I have some good news for you and everyone else who has worried them selves about the human population Time Bomb. The human population crisis is over!
          http://principia-scientific.org/global-population-falling-as-human-fertility-declines/

          The head line is slightly inaccurate. The human population will increase until we baby boomers fall off the twig, then decline.

          00

          • #
            Leo Morgan

            @ Peter C.
            I’ve never been worried about human overpopulation. I’d read Dr Jerry Pournelle’s “A step further out” before being exposed to the Club of Rome nonsense. I strongly recommend it even today.
            But yes, I agreed with Joe’s comment “…our planet has always had a problem with overpopulation until something intervenes.” That’s because ecosystems always metaphorically follow Blackman’s Law; take away one limitation and they’ll thrive and increase until they reach the next limiting factor.
            I wasn’t persuaded by ‘limits to Growth’, as history has now demonstrated, they had every relevant factor completely wrong, life expectancy, fertility rate and mortality rates. But on the other hand, for similar reasons I doubt the figures from your link. There are too many unverified assumptions about the way the future will turn out. For example, I’m confident the juxtaposition of computing technology and biotechnology will have a dramatic impact on medicine and life expectancy shortly, that will blow the figures used in the link out of the water. Those changes are, admittedly, taking longer than I expected, but I’m still confidently optimistic.
            Nevertheless, thanks for the reference. The evidence drives me much closer to your viewpoint than that of the ‘humans are cancer’ cult.

            00

        • #
          Leo Morgan

          @ Joe Lalonde
          I’m sorry for my delay in replying Joe; I’ve been enjoying the luxury of staying in be while fighting off a cold.
          You’ve made two responses, and I’ll reply to each.
          But sadly, I don’t follow you at all in your first comment. I know what parts of my education were speculative, they were labelled as such. But I don’t know what parts you mean- mathematics, nature studies, geology, English, Religious studies, Art, what? But granting for the sake of discussion, that parts of our education speculative were speculative, how does that education use “currency for trade with a country that controls it’s value and can manipulate the world to follow or be destroyed by the globalization experiment.”?
          I believe you’re mistaken in your claim that’scientists believe the world has not lost a single drop of water…’. Here’s one article that claims it has lost a quarter. I admit I don’t find my own reference very persuasive; it doesn’t mention the in-falling 500 tonnes per day of space material, much of which is water, nor the final evidence-free kowtowing to the dogma of thermageddon, but it should suffice to show that your claim as 6to what they believe is not accurate.
          I suspect you’re mixing in too many ideas together to be able to use clear grammar, and as a result are being unclear. Do you think that might be the case?

          With your second response, you spoke clearly and I answer just as clearly, “Yes, Fracking and atomics are good for this planet and this species.”
          Firstly, the way to tell if something is good or bad is to add up all its good as well as all its bad. As an example, I regard the death of any single human being as a disaster, yet if I had the ability, I’d be willing to kill Pol Pot before he rose to power. The good caused by fracking and atomic energy are that the poor of the world can eat, and have medical care, and live at the standard of living of a developed county. Those places without them do not have those benefits. In the unlikely event that someone were both a greenie and rational, they would be wholeheartedly in favour of both fracking and nuclear energy, as the only viable means of reducing CO2 emissions without causing poverty, starvation and desperation. In case you didn’t know, fracked natural gas produces 35% less CO2 than petroleum. As for your point about the damages caused by their failures, I vastly prefer those systems whose rare failures result in no civilian deaths, to systems that cause the megadeaths the world would suffer without nuclear and fracked power.
          You worry about them causing pollution. Much of that is sheer political nonsense. For example, there are people who have been happily living in the Chernobyl exclusion zone for the last twenty years without harm.
          Greens have produced a great amount of anti-nuke and anti-fracking propaganda that turns out to be lies. In my case it was discovering so many lies in Ralph Nader’s ‘the health hazards of going nuclear’ that started me regularly checking Green claims, and that led to my current anti-green course. If you’ve found literature that causes you to believe in exceptional hazards from nuclear power or fracking, check the internet for where they’ve been debunked. Then look for those who claim to debunk the debunkers. Then use rational thought to decide among the various claims. In my experience it has always been the debunkers who have been factual and rational. Should you ever come across an instance of the opposite, I’m happy to look at it. I hope that you will also check into these things and then become a supporter of fracking and nuclear power. I personally recommend ‘The Health Hazard of Not Going Nuclear’ by Dr Petr Beckmann, a bit dated now but particularly useful to expose Ralph Nader’s lies in ‘The Health Hazards of Going Nuclear’ that I had believed up until then. For fracking, you might find ‘The Green and The Black‘ to be interesting. I haven’t yet read it, but the fact it’s written by a self-described Green may give it more credibility to you. Maybe you’ve seen gasland 1 or 2, or frack off, or their co-propaganda works. Try http://energyindepth.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Debunking-GasLand.pdf but not just them, look for other articles that debunk them. Then look for responses to the debunking, then use rational judgement.

          00

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    M. Omar Din — lead author
    Tal Danino — bioengineering alumnus
    Sangeeta Bhatia — MIT

    Just 3 of the names (in the press release) associated with this research.
    Good “American” names all.

    That Ross character (@ #2) seems not to understand much.

    ~~~ Post is a very good example of “opportunity cost”, or the next best alternative foregone.

    51

    • #
      tom0mason

      Supported by good American Institutions –

      This work was supported in part by the San Diego Center for Systems Biology, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health (GM069811),
      a Koch Institute Support Grant (P30-CA14051) from the National Cancer Institute (Swanson Biotechnology Center), and a Core Center Grant (P30-ES002109) from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

      20

      • #
        tom0mason

        Let me just try that again!

        Supported by good American institutions –

        This work was supported in part by the San Diego Center for Systems Biology, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health (GM069811), a Koch Institute Support Grant (P30-CA14051) from the National Cancer Institute (Swanson Biotechnology Center), and a Core Center Grant (P30-ES002109) from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

        20

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Good “American” names all.

      Not all Americans can be named, “Murphy”. :-)

      10

  • #

    La phagothérapie : une alternative efficace aux antibiotiques
    vendredi 4 mars 2016

    https://huemaurice5.blogspot.fr/2016/03/la-phagotherapie-une-alternative.html

    et:

    Phagothérapie et bactériophages: un remède aux antibiotiques
    mardi 5 avril 2016

    https://huemaurice5.blogspot.fr/2016/04/phagotherapie-et-bacteriophages-un.html

    20

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Phage therapy: An effective alternative to antibiotics.
      Friday, March 4, 2016

      and:

      Bacteriophages and phage therapy: a cure with antibiotics
      Tuesday, April 5, 2016

      10

  • #
    Uncle Gus

    I just wanted to say, “Wow!!!”

    Cancer, we are coming for you!

    40

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    The possibilities are endless if we can learn to use living cells or even viruses against our diseases. Maybe these sometimes very dangerous or fatal little pests can be turned into friends.

    They may also be turned into more protests that have little or no basis in the truth. In spite of no actual evidence supporting their position there is a building body of “evidence” that RF energy is harmful. I was looking at this very subject yesterday. It’s all anecdotal, X says I never had Y happen to me until I started to use a cell phone or until a smart meter was installed; blah blah blah. We have no way of knowing if what X says is true. We have no double blind studies that even examine the problem. But the demon gets a life of its own anyway.

    Sorry to say but I expect more of the same from doing this, a potential life saver.

    10

  • #

    This isn’t much of a surprise, though I’d be more leery of it because viruses would supply extraneous, for this purpose, reversion of genetic information.

    Whether we are talking about a bacterial colony, a yeast colony, or an organized multicellular life form, intercellular communication occurs via small to medium sized signaling molecules that bind on the cell surface and induce an electrochemical response. In multicellular organisms, this system induces blood vessel growth. Successful blood supply recruitment maintains tissue and organ function. When this happens to a nascent cancer, this results in tumor maintenance. Suppression via apoptosis is the general mechanism by which cancer chemotherapy or radiotherapy work.

    This is someone using a controlled infection to supply a specialty chemical to induce tumor apoptosis. There has been work that I am aware of that used shut off the blood supply to do this and/or prevent tumor angiogenesis to do this. It is an interesting approach. There also was some immunomodulation work being done to enhance immune system surveillance and control, for the immune system produces chemicals, locally, that also induce apoptosis.

    00