Can Ultrasound Destroy Damaged Chromosome 17 in Cancer Cells?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sontag
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the potential of using ultrasound to target and destroy damaged chromosome 17 in cancer cells, specifically focusing on the p53 gene. It highlights that the size of chromosome 17 may influence its susceptibility to damage, particularly during cell division when translocations can occur. However, the consensus is that ultrasound is unlikely to effectively break covalent bonds in biomolecules without causing significant collateral damage to surrounding cells. Furthermore, ultrasound lacks the specificity needed for targeted cancer treatment, making cytotoxic drugs a more viable option. Overall, while the concept is intriguing, current scientific understanding suggests ultrasound is not a practical solution for addressing chromosomal damage in cancer.
sontag
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
The p53 gene which is damaged or missing in many cases of cancer
is located on chromosome 17 which is one of the smaller chromosomes?
Does the size of chromosome 17 make it easier/more difficult
for p53 to be damaged/removed?
Do chromosomes respond to ultrasound?
Could a damaged chromosome 17 be destroyed in cancer cells by ultrasound?
 
Biology news on Phys.org
the size of the chromosome does play a role, since during cell division a translocation can occur, where a piece of a chromosome breaks off and winds up stuck on another chromosome. this can result in altered expression of a gene, or overexpression.

downs syndrome, for example, is caused by have 3 copies of chromosome 21. but sometimes a piece of chromosome 21 will break off and stick to chromosome 14 (a translocation) thus giving trisomy in effect, even though there are technically the correct number of chromosomes.

trisomy or translocation of most chromosomes results in cell death. 21 is also a smaller chromosome, in fact i believe it is the smallest. so as radical of a change such as chromosomal defect is, it could possibly allow survival of the organism by virtual of the fact that the chromosome is small.

keep in mind, that none of this may apply to a cancer cell...it depends on how that cell became cancerous. what we call "cancer" is molecularly a collection of at least several hundred different diseases. many forms of cancer do not rely on p53 at all.

ultrasound is not something that will work, a covalent bond of a biomolecule is not going to be broken by something like ultrasound, unless it was a massive amount of energy in which case the cell, and neighboring cells, will long be dead by that time.

also, to date, something like ultrasound is not specific enough. cytotoxic drugs, as terrible as they are, are more specific than ultrasound would ever be. acoustic waves simply propogate through the air too widely, targeted radiation is usually of much higher wavelength in order to try to "narrow the beam" and yet deliver enough energy for cytotoxicity.
 
Last edited:
https://www.nhs.uk/mental-health/conditions/body-dysmorphia/ Most people have some mild apprehension about their body, such as one thinks their nose is too big, hair too straight or curvy. At the extreme, cases such as this, are difficult to completely understand. https://www.msn.com/en-ca/health/other/why-would-someone-want-to-amputate-healthy-limbs/ar-AA1MrQK7?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=68ce4014b1fe4953b0b4bd22ef471ab9&ei=78 they feel like they're an amputee in the body of a regular person "For...
Thread 'Did they discover another descendant of homo erectus?'
The study provides critical new insights into the African Humid Period, a time between 14,500 and 5,000 years ago when the Sahara desert was a green savanna, rich in water bodies that facilitated human habitation and the spread of pastoralism. Later aridification turned this region into the world's largest desert. Due to the extreme aridity of the region today, DNA preservation is poor, making this pioneering ancient DNA study all the more significant. Genomic analyses reveal that the...
Whenever these opiods are mentioned they usually mention that e.g. fentanyl is "50 times stronger than heroin" and "100 times stronger than morphine". Now it's nitazene which the public is told is everything from "much stronger than heroin" and "200 times stronger than fentany"! Do these numbers make sense at all? How do they arrive at them? Kill thousands of mice? En passant: nitazene have already been found in both Oxycontin pills and in street "heroin" here, so Naloxone is more...
Back
Top