Potential cancer treatment discovered thanks to Malaria

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around a potential cancer treatment derived from research on malaria, specifically focusing on a sugar molecule found in the placenta that is also present in many types of cancer. The conversation explores the implications of using a malaria protein to target cancer cells, as well as the challenges associated with immune responses in human trials.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants highlight the link between a specific sugar in the placenta and its relevance to both malaria and cancer, suggesting that the malaria protein could effectively target cancer cells.
  • Others express enthusiasm about the potential effectiveness of the treatment based on preliminary results from cell cultures and mice, advocating for expedited human testing.
  • Concerns are raised regarding the use of a foreign protein, which may provoke immune reactions in humans, especially in individuals with prior malaria exposure.
  • One participant notes that the initial mouse experiments utilized immunocompromised models, which may not accurately reflect the immune response in humans, suggesting that non-immunocompromised models would provide better insights.
  • A potential alternative approach is proposed, involving the generation of monoclonal antibodies targeting the same epitope as the malaria protein, though the efficacy of this approach remains uncertain.
  • Participants acknowledge the complexity of biology and the challenges in addressing these issues, indicating that thorough testing and consideration are necessary before moving to human trials.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of excitement about the potential treatment and concern regarding the immune response issues. There is no consensus on the best approach to address these challenges, and multiple competing views remain regarding the efficacy and safety of the proposed treatment.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations related to the use of immunocompromised models in initial experiments and the potential variability in immune responses among humans, which remain unresolved.

Messages
37,451
Reaction score
14,318
Sometimes the enemy of your enemy is still an enemy, but also a friend...

Pregnant women are more susceptible to malaria, scientists were able to link this to a specific sugar in the placenta that seems to be relevant for its rapid growth. The same sugar molecule is found in most types of cancer. The protein which malaria uses to target that sugar can be used to target cancer cells.
Seems to be very effective both with cell cultures and in mice, tests with humans could start in a few years.

News 1
News 2
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Evo, fredreload and Greg Bernhardt
Biology news on Phys.org
Very cool :smile:
 
mfb said:
Seems to be very effective both with cell cultures and in mice, tests with humans could start in a few years.
We need to speed this up!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman
One concern with the treatment is that it uses a foreign protein which is likely to provoke a reaction from the body's immune system (indeed, those who have had malaria may already have antibodies against that protein). The mice experiments were done using a xenograft tumor models in which researchers put human cancer cells into mice. These experiments require the use of immunocompromised mice, or else the mouse's immune systems would react to the human tumor cells. The fact that the mice were immunocompromised probably allowed the researchers to circumvent problems with immunity. However, they will likely run into those problems when trying to treat humans. A better test would have been to try to treat tumors in non-immunocompromised mice.

However, a promising alternative approach would be to generate monoclonal antibodies against the same eptitope that the malaria protein targets. Whether those antibodies show the same specificity and efficacy, however, will remain to be seen.

Biology is complicated, science is hard, and addressing issues like these are why it should take a few years before we should be thinking of testing this therapy in humans.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mfb, berkeman and Greg Bernhardt

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
7K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
12K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K