Cancer roundhouse - Evidence mounts that a single antibody could knock out many cancers

http://stanmed.stanford.edu/2012summer/article7.html

THE “DON’T EAT ME” SIGNAL

It is the nature of life that things will go wrong eventually. Our cellular software, our DNA, can get damaged in many ways. Eventually “bugs” in that software accumulate, and cells stop following instructions written and revised over billions of years to make sure they do their proper jobs. One result of this process is cancer — cells that are supposed to behave within the rules of the body’s decorum begin breaking those rules and multiplying out of control.

In 1998, Weissman and his postdoc David Traver, PhD, were crossbreeding mice with various genes that block programmed suicide in cells that have been damaged, genes that are known to be associated with cancer. They created a breed that was particularly prone to developing leukemia, then analyzed all the genes being manufactured (or “expressed”) by the blood-forming cells in these mice. “The first gene that we saw that was overexpressed in the mice that got leukemia was CD47,” Weissman says. In fact, it turned out that high levels of CD47 were common in every kind of leukemia, in mice and humans both.

But no one knew what CD47 did. Then, two years later, a group in Sweden discovered that one role of the CD47 protein was to act as an age marker on red blood cells. They discovered that red blood cells start out with a lot of CD47 on their cell surface and slowly lose the protein as they age. At a certain level, the dearth of CD47 allows macrophages to eat the aging red blood cells, thus making way for younger red blood cells and a refreshed blood supply. CD47 thereafter became known as a “don’t eat me” signal to the macrophages.

Wow -cool stuff!

won't be long before the pharmaceutical companies send a hitman after these guys.

We can only pray. Having lost someone to cancer, i don't really buy the whole cure conspiracy thing. Cancer hits everyone, I'm sure the people in the pharmaceutical companies have people in the lives and families affected by cancer as well. Also, if steve jobs couldn't beat it.... personally that says a lot.

won't be long before the pharmaceutical companies send a hitman after these guys.

That's such nonsense. What the companies are all doing is trying to figure out how they can get in on this action themselves. Is there a patent, can we buy the patent, is there a way to accomplish the same thing getting around the patent, etc. Whoever markets a real cure for cancer is going to be richer than Croesus.

This is potentially fantastic news.

The pharmaceutical companies make a lot more money through the various treatments of cancer (and prolonged treatments at that) than they would on a one-time killshot. I hope I'm wrong, but these companies haven't given me much hope.

The pharmaceutical companies make a lot more money through the various treatments of cancer (and prolonged treatments at that) than they would on a one-time killshot. I hope I'm wrong, but these companies haven't given me much hope.

What do you think they are going to do?

This guy is at Stanford. He's really a big name. He's got multiple PhD students and people with PhDs that work with him and have done direct work on this.

And a whole bunch of this work is published.

Are Pharma companies going to anhiliate a whole lab of researchs and simultaneously scrub the published literature on this?

Even if they wouldn't support this, you don't think somebody else would? Do you think that if you want to Bill Gates and said, hey I have something that can cure cancer (which will benefit the whole world) AND/OR you can make even more money, he'd say no?

Now, I suspect this won't work as laid out in the best case scanario. These things rarely do.

Wow...call me gullible, I've got as bad of a case of "lack of faith in the system" as anyone for the same reasons mentioned above. But one can't help but get antsy reading something like this and hopeful that this plague may finally be near its end.

Looks to me that based on my family's history, I'm probably good...no males. However, females are almost 100% on both my side and my wife's side. Lost an aunt in law to it last week. Zazzaro is right. It touches all of us. It's hard to find someone who hasn't lost a family member and/or friend to it.

That's such nonsense. What the companies are all doing is trying to figure out how they can get in on this action themselves. Is there a patent, can we buy the patent, is there a way to accomplish the same thing getting around the patent, etc. Whoever markets a real cure for cancer is going to be richer than Croesus.

This is potentially fantastic news.

I was being sarcastic about the hitman thing, but these pharmaceutical don't want a cure for cancer...they make so much more on the drugs prescribed to make the cancer patients "better" and more comfortable.

This is really interesting. I want to see if I can yack with some of these guys next week. Thanks for bringing it out.

If the situation is as described for these cancers- 30 years since the last new treatments.

I seriously doubt that anybody is making a bunch of money. That means the patents expired long ago, which means whoever can make them and sell them w/ the least profit margin is making the money, which means plenty of competition from generics, which tend to be non-R&D research companies.

The only way the R&D reseach Pharma companies make money is if the develop new drugs that are better than the old ones.

I think they likely will jump at a "cure" because at least for a period of time, they will beat generics, and when the patent is up, they will be in no worse shape than they are now.

I was being sarcastic about the hitman thing, but these pharmaceutical don't want a cure for cancer...they make so much more on the drugs prescribed to make the cancer patients "better" and more comfortable.

That is really not true.

I was being sarcastic about the hitman thing, but these pharmaceutical don't want a cure for cancer...they make so much more on the drugs prescribed to make the cancer patients "better" and more comfortable.

By the way you characterize these companies, It appears you really don't have a clue about this topic or pharmaceutical companies in general.

I hope this is really a cure or a step towards a cure.

That is really not true.

I wouldn't disagree too quickly...my mom is an RN and a breast cancer survivor in a very small town, and even she knows what big pharma is doing.

Why not cure the common cold? OTC meds make too much money. It goes 'round & 'round.

I wouldn't disagree too quickly...my mom is an RN and a breast cancer survivor in a very small town, and even she knows what big pharma is doing.

Why not cure the common cold? OTC meds make too much money. It goes 'round & 'round.

How do you cure the common cold? What is big pharm doing to prevent the development of a cure for it?

I wouldn't disagree too quickly...my mom is an RN and a breast cancer survivor in a very small town, and even she knows what big pharma is doing.

Why not cure the common cold? OTC meds make too much money. It goes 'round & 'round.

There's no cure for the common cold because it is very hard to cure. There is this thing called evolution.

Big pharma isn't making a bunch of money on the OTC because the vast majority of that stuff went generic a long time ago.

Big Pharma makes money from things that are patent protected, which grants them exclusivity, which means they have no competition.

With they way that big Pharma (and I mean the companies that actually develop medicine and not the big generic companies) is struggling now if somebody could generate a product that actually cured the common cold, they'd jump on it in a minute. The people running the company would make a bundle during the period of exclustivity and walk away rich by the time it ended.

Do people really so poorly understand the importance of patents and exclusivitiy to the R&D based Pharma companies?

Again, they pretty regularaly have to produce drugs that are better than the previous generation, or they don't really make much money because of the generic drug market.

Is your mom still taking medicine to control her breast cancer?

Well, clearly somebody messed up to let that cure get out.

And every time somebody dies from cancer, the total collection of Pharma (including the genercis) just lost a customer (because realistically if your living, you will get sick again).

I wouldn't disagree too quickly...my mom is an RN and a breast cancer survivor in a very small town, and even she knows what big pharma is doing.

I don't know your sister, but my sister the RN is not immune to believing in all sorts of unproven treatments, and when my mother was diagnosed with colon cancer, encouraged her to treat it with herbs and acupuncture.

Mom got chemo instead, and is in remission. The 5 year survival rate for her cancer is around 60% and rising. If "Big Pharma" is intent on keeping her dependent on their drugs, they need to fine tune their dosages - they're accidentally curing way too many people, and Mom hasn't taken a cancer drug in 6 years (edit: which, oops, is what Peter just said).

And every time somebody dies from cancer, the total collection of Pharma (including the genercis) just lost a customer (because realistically if your living, you will get sick again).

For some reason, my quotes weren't coming through.

Friend of mine's mom ran a hospice. When someone they were caring for passed on, they "lost an account". She had no doubt that she'd gain another.

I think what I'm trying to say is that I trust science and the noble folks trying to make progress more than I trust the system that seemingly supports them.(?????)

One thing I became very used to long, long, ago as a kid---humans have the capacity (I'd say the tendency, and for many reasons) to believe absolutely crazy (let alone untrue of incorrect) ****. Including people who are comfortably within any norm of functionality, and even many who most folks would regard as quite smart in most ways.

"Big pharm" as an industry has an abundance of greed and unethical behavior among its components as does any large human institution whose main cause for existence is material gain (think Ferengi).

But this becomes simplistically (and often stupidly) exaggerated. The conspiracy and Dark Lords themes are often bandied about in far too broad and pervasive manner vs. what's actual reality.

The vast number of professionals in all areas of the field, from researchers and lab workers to the business folk, are about making advances in our ability to treat ailments, and the business side is ear-deep knowing how to make plenty of money while actually facilitating those who are dedicated to trying to find remedies to our health issues.

I am not saying there isn't more than enough "bad" that happens out of greed, and it all demands serious scrutiny. I am just saying that as with many similar things, some people so disposed to certain cognitive habits take it to extremes.

For some reason, my quotes weren't coming through.

Friend of mine's mom ran a hospice. When someone they were caring for passed on, they "lost an account". She had no doubt that she'd gain another.

I think what I'm trying to say is that I trust science and the noble folks trying to make progress more than I trust the system that seemingly supports them.(?????)

1. First, for the most part, Big Pharma is a volume business. The more customers, the more money they make. I don't know if you friends mom's hospice is the same way (my dad ran a small business and when things were going well, he'd some times turn down orders/new clients. It became an issue of could he meet the likely demand with his current employment level, would he have to add employees and then how much woud he make vs. the head ache of hiring somebody else and training them.) But for big Pharma, it is pretty much more customers more money. If they are allowing people to die from a cancer they could treat given how we do treat most cancers (treatment and then long term remissions where no drugs are being taken or the person dies), it is hard to imagine an economic model where curing cancer wouldn't be economically advantage for the company that developed it (the exception here would be MAYBE if it were something that wouldn't be patent protected and they currently had somethings that was patent protected treating a large number of cancers, but that wouldn't be the case for a CD47 antibody, and that math changes when the things they have come off of patent protection or some other company produces a better drug, including potentially the cure).

2. I'm not saying there aren't issues. But if you look the issue is almost short term profit taking (pushing doctors to prescribe the drug for off label purposes and not properly reporting and/or following after market research (and sometime pre-market). These things are short term profit taking vs. long term costs/penalties/liabilites. The decision is normally made to take the money righ then.

3. I've also known people that worked in vaccine development branches of large Pharma that felt their field was under funded as compared to small molecule discovery and part of that was driven by the differences in terms of likely profits (one time application for the most part and having to deal with the vaccine fears out there vs. a longer term/continual requirements, but more public accpetance) so in terms of disease treatments/human health over the long term, they might not be operating in the most effecient manner (Note, I'm not saying that they had vaccines that weren't being taken to market. I'm saying they felt like the company didn't spend as much money as they should had vaccines to discover/invent vaccines that they could then take to market and instead spent the money to discover/invent small molecules that could be used as drugs).

But those sort of things are a far cry (and in the case of short term profit taking-even contradictory to) from not developing a relatively easily identified treatment for a large number of cancers.

In the end, even if you ignore the individual people out there working on this, I think you'd have a hard time coming up with an economic model where the company that knew about the lilkely cure for cancer and didn't develop it wasn't costing themselves money (unless MAYBE it was something they couldn't patent, but again that wouldn't be the case for something like a CD47 antibody). And then that doesn't even get into people like the person this thread is talking about that doesn't work for Pharma, but Stanford and his interests and Stanford's interests (economic or otherwise).

In the end, I'm a company and I can develop a drug that is going to give me exclusitivity in an area where I generally don't have it currently AND I'll end up with more customers longer term. That's probably going to be worth doing from any sort of economic standpoint over the current situation.

I always enjoy political opinions that I can tie directly to stand up comedy routines. This is a Chris Rock bit.

That is really not true.

By the way you characterize these companies, It appears you really don't have a clue about this topic or pharmaceutical companies in general.

you guys are either delusional or you don't know what you are talking about. Maybe you need to do a bit more research before you question my knowledge of this topic. I know many people in the biochemistry/pharm industry as well as Pharmaceutical sales. This is absolutely true. Do you have any idea how much these companies make selling the cancer drugs they already have?

---------- Post added April-2nd-2013 at 09:54 AM ----------

One thing I became very used to long, long, ago as a kid---humans have the capacity (I'd say the tendency, and for many reasons) to believe absolutely crazy (let alone untrue of incorrect) ****. Including people who are comfortably within any norm of functionality, and even many who most folks would regard as quite smart in most ways.

"Big pharm" as an industry has an abundance of greed and unethical behavior among its components as does any large human institution whose main cause for existence is material gain (think Ferengi).

But this becomes simplistically (and often stupidly) exaggerated. The conspiracy and Dark Lords themes are often bandied about in far too broad and pervasive manner vs. what's actual reality.

The vast number of professionals in all areas of the field, from researchers and lab workers to the business folk, are about making advances in our ability to treat ailments, and the business side is ear-deep knowing how to make plenty of money while actually facilitating those who are dedicated to trying to find remedies to our health issues.

I am not saying there isn't more than enough "bad" that happens out of greed, and it all demands serious scrutiny. I am just saying that as with many similar things, some people so disposed to certain cognitive habits take it to extremes.

this is 100% opinion...you really need to meet more people who actually work in this industry before you come to a conclusion that this stuff is exaggerated. You will be unpleasantly surprised.

I didn't read the article but I am fairly familiar with CD47 and potential antibodies to it, the big question here is how do you target specifically cancer cells that express CD47? Many cells express CD47 and I dont think its a good idea to get rid of the ones that are not the problem. Sure the more CD47 a cell has the more likely the antibody will see that cell type but I still worry about off-target effects of a general CD47 antibody and its prolonged use (prolonged is the key). There are many such hurdles to overcome but the potential is pretty promising.

edit: To add I work at a Big Pharma and PeterMP hit it on the head patents, patents and maket exclusivity is what its all about...

won't be long before the pharmaceutical companies send a hitman after these guys.

i am such a good and inherently wholesome person that i read this as :

"won't be long before the pharmaceutical companies send a hitman (a cool new drug) after these guys (the CD47 macrophages) <...and develop a cure for many cancers>"