NIH scientists identify molecular link ..metabolism - BC

cp418

http://www.nih.gov/news/health/feb2013/nci-05.htm

NIH scientists identify molecular link between metabolism and breast cancer

cp418

IMO - this still leaves out numerous patients who are not over weight, not diabetic, and BRCA negative or minimal to no family hx.  They keep pushing this obesity condition which I agree is not healthy but not the common factor across why many of us are here.

jenrio

At least they got some fresh understanding.   You never know when basic research could lead to breakthroughs for a minority or even majority of people.   Thanks for sharing cp!

SelenaWolf

Breast cancer is a complex disease; I think that the above is just one explanation as to why some women can be considered "high risk".

jenrio

Yeah.  To me, breast cancer research are like detectives in a Clue mystery.   Some are working on "who dunnit", "how dunnit", others are working on "stopping the carnage".    I'd support all these hardworking detectives and love NIH and NIC and DoD and the researchers for their heavy lifting work, including Komen for their  metastatic research funding (however small).

Just not the fancy fluffy pink research that costs billions to only tell us: do this or that more (exercise, radiate yearly from 30 year old on, choose lumpectomy+radiation over mastectomy, eat less, etc), you are x% less likely to die.

1.  no fresh insight

2.  these strategies are not cures, will never be cures

3.  people don't deserve to die even if they don't/can't do any of this or that

SelenaWolf

In ways, I agree.  Some of the "fluff" studies provide insights into possible factors in developing breast cancer, which makes for interesting reading, but that's about it.  And they do tend to get people into an uproar because the media tends to present them like they are "fact" and the "latest break-through".

To add to your three points above, I'd like to mention my pet peeve: people who insist on stating that: 1) breast cancer is curable; and 2) advanced/metastatic breast cancer can be managed long-term like a chronic disease.  Point 2) especially upsets me because - while, in some cases, it is true - as long as people believe this, the urgency for a cure/prevention is lost.  Yes, we do need better treatments - that is undeniable - but DON'T STOP THERE!!!  I don't want to live with breast cancer long-term.  I don't want to live with it at all!

But that's just me.

jenrio

LOL.  Can't agree with you more.   It took me a few months of almost fulltime research to dig under the thickets of papers to arrive at the same understanding as you.  

All my acquaintances including a biology PHD relative still have the idea that breast cancer is "curable".   Just incredible how these simple facts are deeply buried by all the optimistic marketing messages.

On the other hand, I'm very hopeful and really appreciate the scientists researchers clinicians' hard work.   Cancer is very smart and it nearly always found a way.   So researchers need all the funding and help they could get.     

SelenaWolf

I hear you.  I was gobsmacked, recently, when my mother-in-law asked me if I was looking forward to my five-year milestone.  Slightly confused, I replied, "sure".  She noticed my confusion and said, "well, you'll be cured then and will never have to deal with this again."   She got quite upset with me when I pointed out that the five-year milestone was just that; a five-year, disease-free milestone, that meant my highest-risk period was behind me.  That breast cancer is not curable and I will be at risk for developing it again for the rest of my life; that the best I can hope for is that I'll remain disease-free until I'm a very old lady.  She, then, went to my husband and said that I "needed" to work on my optimism because being so pessimistic could bring the cancer back.  I had to leave the room or I would have exploded. 

I hate pink-washing.  It leads to such complacency and ignorance.

wallycat

Fascinating study.

The day I got dx, I said to DH...gee, all the stuff we were brainwashed into believing when I went to dietetic school, and we, of course, believed...I ate a lot of meals vegetarian and carb heavy.  There is diabetes in my family and even though I had a BMI of 19, I was shocked to have pre-diabetes in my early 40s...not long after, breast cancer.  I am not BRCA positive, but one wonders if it matters.

BilateralBeauties

More news out of the University of Minnesota about enzymes to predict breast cancer. Anybody seen this info yet?

curveball

you mean this one BB?

Researchers at the University of Minnesota have uncovered a human enzyme responsible for causing DNA mutations found in the majority of breast cancers. The discovery of this enzyme – called APOBEC3B – may change the way breast cancer is diagnosed and treated.

Researchers at the University of Minnesota have uncovered a human enzyme responsible for causing DNA mutations found in the majority of breast cancers. The discovery of this enzyme – called APOBEC3B – may change the way breast cancer is diagnosed and treated.

Read more at: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-02-enzyme-breast-cancer-mutations.html#jCp

jenrio

Sounds like it BB refers to it.   Haven't read it yet, but looks very interesting.    To Cancer, Immune system, Brain, arguably the 3 enduring high stake mysteries in medicine.  

I put Cancer first, because it is the one mysteries with dead bodies all over the carpet.   And thousands of characters, some are suspected ring leaders, some are accomplices, some are panicked onlookers, some are sleeping  or striking security guards.       

gpawelski

This is what happens when you simply try to find a mutation and then develop or pick an appropriately targeted drug. It seems like a nice idea, however, not every key that looks like it will fit a lock will actually turn it. There are numerous common or even uncommon mutations in various tumor types, but they don’t know that all those mutations are going to turn out to be relevant, as many of them are essentially bystanders.

Anyone familiar with cellular biology knows that having the genetic sequence of a known gene (genotype) does not equate to having the disease state (phenotype) represented by that gene. It requires specific cellular triggers and specialized cellular mechanisms to literally translate the code into the work horse of the cellular world – proteins.

Cells are routinely broken up by mechanical and enzymatic (APOBEC3B) means, which alters their subsequent behavior. Some methods like cell-lines have limited analysis only to isolated tumor cells and fail to incorporate the crucial contribution of non-tumorous elements to the cancer phenomenon.

But I guess the publicity helps to get more research funding.

ihatesnowihatesnow

http://phys.org/news/2013-01-rhythm-protein-encoded-rna-biologists.html