Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Ezekiel_W OP t1_iu03gra wrote

>Two major studies published in Nature have uncovered a new level of control of cancer gene activity within tumors, termed cancer's "dark matter."
>
>The revelation shows that epigenetics, cells controlling gene activity, play a crucial role in the development of cancer. Cancers are usually tested for DNA mutations alone, which can miss this level of control, thereby failing to predict how cancers may behave and respond to treatment.

36

FuturologyBot t1_iu08i8y wrote

The following submission statement was provided by /u/Ezekiel_W:

>Two major studies published in Nature have uncovered a new level of control of cancer gene activity within tumors, termed cancer's "dark matter."
>
>The revelation shows that epigenetics, cells controlling gene activity, play a crucial role in the development of cancer. Cancers are usually tested for DNA mutations alone, which can miss this level of control, thereby failing to predict how cancers may behave and respond to treatment.

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/yevfv6/major_breakthrough_in_cancer_research_papers/iu03gra/

1

Significant_Sign t1_iu0crnu wrote

Well, I find it difficult to appreciate the novel use of 'dark matter' just for buzzy-ness, but it is quite a breakthrough. Takes advantage of the level of technology we already have, we just need to use it differently.

315

Significant_Sign t1_iu0j0il wrote

Replying to Komnos (#262,219)

Not long. It only needs to get picked up by the correct "independent minded" channel/paper/zine and the people who do their own research will be trying to "own" their relatives at Thanksgiving.

24

Consumer_Good t1_iu0kv78 wrote

Cancer is consciousness trying to take over the body

−14

Alone_Asparagus7651 t1_iu0kzoq wrote

Science is going to go all the way around until we believe in demons again lol

13

pinkfootthegoose t1_iu0rjz5 wrote

Replying to Komnos (#262,219)

I was thinking the same thing. Here come the conspiracy nuts.

I wish that the people that label these things would think a bit more of the social impact of using terms like this. freaking morons.

3

Snufflepuffster t1_iu0s59g wrote

What they are saying is historically we have considered cancer to be caused by DNA corruption, but how the DNA is read is actually way more important. How DNA is read can be affected by your environment, so this is a big shift in how we consider the disease.

230

Drachefly t1_iu0wqok wrote

Making a tool to help people try to do this was my first job out of college, in 2001.

Maybe it would have worked if people had used the tool with colossal data sets like this. Instead, they… threw 3 patients at it in a time series 5 elements long. Amusingly, the organization I was working for was also called the Institute for Cancer Research. Just, a much smaller one an ocean away.

6

Twatareyousaying t1_iu0xkie wrote

This isn’t really new. We’ve known that epigenetics and methylation patterns change in cancer for several years now. I’m not sure what’s novel about this article.

23

powabiatch t1_iu14nf6 wrote

Replying to Twatareyousaying (#264,957)

What’s novel is that the papers attribute cell-to-cell variation within a tumor to a larger degree of epigenetic regulation compared to genetic variation (i.e. mutations) than previously demonstrated. In other words, cells that look and behave different from each other within the same tumor are less so as a product of different mutations, than as a function of their epigenetic “plasticity” - suggesting more than previously shown that cells can readily change their phenotype without necessarily changing their genotype.

Which, some of us already thought so… but these papers use large datasets and brand new technology to measure it more finely than anyone has before.

30

_Blackstar t1_iu17uyk wrote

Replying to EightEqualsEqualsDe (#263,026)

Other way around though. Dark matter is believed to be the binding agent of the universe; gas and dust falls into the dark matter pockets that have coalesced over the eons and that creates everything from stars to galactic filaments. It's dark energy that's pushing the universe and causing it to grow exponentially.

17

ldb477 t1_iu1jeay wrote

Solving cancer and dark matter in one fell swoop. What a time to be alive.

1

Gamma-512 t1_iu1tkvs wrote

Now I’m wondering if cancer exists. Dark matter hasn’t even been proven.

−4

lapseofreason t1_iu1yrlq wrote

Replying to powabiatch (#265,995)

That's a great explanation - thank you. Since you are appear very knowledgeable, care to speculate on what this increased knowledge might mean on a practical basis if anything ? Cancer survivor here - I take a keen interest in any developments.

5

powabiatch t1_iu1zggb wrote

Replying to lapseofreason (#270,605)

Directly? Probably not much.

But indirectly, it can change the way other researchers approach their projects - by more carefully paying attention to epigenetic marks etc and changing the way they might model their hypotheses. It also has implications about the evolution of drug resistance, metastasis, and more. So I think this will help more researchers appreciate and incorporate non-genomic mechanisms in their thoughts - many already do, of course, but more would be better.

8

Wildpeanut t1_iu215dj wrote

Replying to Komnos (#262,219)

Admittedly that’s what I thought the article was trying to imply. Which is why jargon, or field specific terms should not be used liberally outside of their field of origin. This is especially true for medicine which has its own massive vocabulary and can be a complex and confusing field for laypeople. Why muddy the waters further?

1

Odd_Calligrapher_407 t1_iu2gv22 wrote

Epigenetics are not a new thing and not even associated with cancer as a concept. It’s long been known that epigenetics is responsible for a lot of differentiation and dedifferentiation so not exactly revolutionary or dark matter. I give the breathless headline a D. Not to say the studies are not good but , please it’s not like no one saw this coming…

5

Significant_Sign t1_iu2mgsh wrote

Replying to WiartonWilly (#270,560)

Yes! It's like they don't know we've been talking about epigenetics for more than 5 seconds and people are familiar with it. Even my mom has a passing familiarity and she is not a nerd of any persuasion. Except, they do of course know and this is grown adults still acting like they are adolescents trying to secure their in-group status with the cool kids. Boo to this buzzword marketing-speak becoming the norm in scientific circles.

Now if you'll excuse me, my back is aching.

4

powabiatch t1_iu30406 wrote

Replying to the_lazykins (#276,113)

While there are drugs that target epigenetic regulators (e.g. Ezh2 inhibitors), it’s not clear yet how the new data would take advantage of them (if they can at all). While some of these drugs have shown promise, all of them have some drawbacks because they affect so many genes, often leading to unwanted toxicities. But hopefully this type of new data may help refine when to use which epigenetic drugs in which combinations.

Even so, epigenetic drugs may not always be the best answer to epigenetic dysregulation in cancer cells - remains to be seen though.

3

jam3s2001 t1_iu33l48 wrote

Replying to PloxtTY (#276,727)

It can, but not enough to physically hurt you. But:

It's not the kind of radiation that causes cancer. I'm going to really simplify things here, but when we think about radiation in this context, there's 2 kinds - ionizing and non-ionizing. Anything that's got a longer wavelength than UV light is non-ionizing. This is pretty much all of the stuff we find useful for everyday tech: cell phones, wifi, microwaves, and all that jazz.

Ionizing is the stuff that can hurt us, like UV, X-rays, and Gamma rays. We still have all kinds of useful tech that relies on that stuff, but aside from UVA blacklights, you won't often find it in your home.

Quick edit: microwaves and non ionizing radiation can still hurt you. Microwaves excite water molecules and can cause burns to tissues under your skin. Best to try to avoid exposure.

4

Zebra03 t1_iu38wi8 wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#274,381)

It does emit a bit of radiation but ultimately should be fine in the long term, it's worser to get beamed on by the sun or have a single cigarette then it is to be close to a tv

1

SpankThuMonkey t1_iu39i3c wrote

Please, please, please lets not refer to this as “dark matter”.

It’ll be a short time before quacks, morons and hucksters start peddling special remedies and “cures” based on cosmic energy and galactic gravitational force fields.

There are already people confusing the terms in this very thread.

21

Cylius t1_iu3vi2u wrote

Replying to KamikazeKauz (#277,536)

I mean from what I understand, the article you linked says we should get a better understanding, and this new article seems to suggest we now have that better understanding? Doesnt seem too far from a revelation

39

shittysexadvice t1_iu4wsx0 wrote

Science journalism pro tip: when selecting a relatable metaphor to help explain a difficult science concept avoid choosing another difficult science concept.

3

KamikazeKauz t1_iu57m5x wrote

Replying to Cylius (#280,656)

The point I was trying to make is that epigenetics in cancer are not a new concept, so there is nothing revolutionary about these papers. It's not a revelation or breakthrough if dozens of other papers have found similar things over the course of the past 20 years.

−2