I heard the news that WalMart is selling generic for $4. Great news right? Yes, actually they are, but also that means that it really costs VERY LITTLE to produce those drugs, and the ig pharmacy are just getting richer playing with our health. Don't get me wrong; I'm all for pharmacy to make money and use some of that money in research and development, but there are moral conducts that should be followed. An AIDS drug should be free or almost free, against a Botox injection that I agree could be expensive. It's just a matter of morality, not economics.
that's why I still have to get my expensive medicine from Canada or Mexico, and every time I know somebody is going there I try to get them to bring me some.
I suffer from lower back pain, and that is by itself another theme that I have to write about later. Anyway, every time I get sick I got two alternatives: go to the doctor, wait 2 hours (if I can get an appointment the next day) to see the doctor, not able to sit down, walk or move - the only position it doesn't hurt is laying down. After the doctor's visit he recommends pain killers, prescription. I have to get them from the Pharmacy: another two hours.
Second option: get "tribedoce" injections from Mexico - one package with vitamin B-12 plus "diclofenaco" (powerful muscle relaxer) and inject myself; you break open both vials, combine liquids in syringe and inject. Within two hours I can walk again. Cost: $5 usd.
Why I have to do that? Why does my doctor doesn't give me that? Because I am not a patient - I'm a CUSTOMER. I'm no good for him in good health, he needs me to recover slowly so he and the pharmacy make money with me. I'm no good for them, in good health. Even the insurance make money, revving the premiums every year.
more to come
Uncle Javo
Monday, October 16, 2006
A new study finds that drinking tea may reduce the risk of deadly diseases
By Dean Ornish, M.D. Newsweek
Oct. 3, 2006 - I love coffee. I love the way it smells. I love the way it tastes. (Although I'm so sensitive to caffeine, even a cup of coffee makes me talk as fast as Robin Williams might sound if he were on speed?and, hey, do you have to drive so slowly?) But I drink tea now. Most of the time.
Apparently, I'm not alone. Tea is the most widely consumed beverage in the world, other than water. Over 6.6 billion pounds of tea are produced each year.
Why? More and more research is documenting that what we include in our diet is as important as what we exclude. Tea contains a variety?perhaps thousands?of powerful, protective antioxidant substances called polyphenols, especially flavonoids such as catechins, that may help reduce the risk of some of the most common chronic diseases.
For example, a study was published two weeks ago in the Journal of the American Medical Association that followed more than 40,000 Japanese men and women over a seven- to eleven-year period. They found that green tea consumption was associated with a reduced mortality due to all causes except cancer.
The more green tea they drank, the lower their risk of dying early. Researchers found that that the overall risk of premature death due to illness was 26-percent lower among those who consumed five or more cups a day compared those who drank less than one cup per day of green tea after seven years of follow-up.
Interestingly, the effects of tea on reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease were not caused only by changes in traditional risk factors such as cholesterol levels or blood pressure. The polyphenols in green tea appear to have powerful antioxidant properties and are scavengers for free radicals that otherwise could damage your cells. These polyphenols may directly and beneficially affect coronary artery blockages (atherosclerosis), dilate your arteries, and also help reduce the formation of blood clots. Green tea also has significant anti-inflammatory effects. Black tea and oolong teas were not found to be quite as protective as green tea.
This is not surprising. Teas are categorized by the level of fermentation: green tea is unfermented (and so retains the original color of the tea leaves), oolong tea is partially fermented, and black tea is fermented (which makes it dark in color). The process of fermentation reduces the protective activity of the flavonoids, which are highest in green tea, intermediate in oolong tea, and lowest in black tea. On the other hand, caffeine is highest in black tea, intermediate in oolong, and lowest in green tea. The caffeine in green tea is also lower than in coffee or cola soft drinks.
Unfortunately, about 77 percent of the tea produced and consumed in the world is black tea, only 21 percent is green tea, and less than 2 percent is oolong tea, according to a recent study in the International Journal of Cardiology. The total concentration of the protective catechins in the blood after drinking green tea is three times higher than after drinking black tea. Still, while green tea is best, all teas have been shown to have health benefits.
While the Japanese researchers did not find that tea reduced the risk of cancer, other studies have. Animal studies have shown that green tea may inhibit cancer formation of the skin, lung, oral cavity, esophagus, stomach, liver, kidney, prostate and other organs. In humans, studies suggest that drinking tea may reduce the risk of digestive cancers. For example, a study of more than 35,000 postmenopausal women in Iowa, published in the American Journal of Epidemiology in 1996, found that those who drank more than two cups per day of tea were 32 percent less likely to have cancers throughout their digestive tract, including reduced cancers of the mouth, esophagus, stomach, colon and rectum. Four or more cups per day of tea lowered the risk of such cancers by 63 percent. Some (but not all) studies with varying degrees of rigor suggest that drinking tea may reduce the risk of early-stage breast, prostate, ovarian and lung cancer. In one study, green-tea extract was found to stimulate prostate cancer cell death. The evidence was strong enough to interest the National Cancer Institute in conducting a phase II study of green-tea extract in men with metastatic prostate cancer, which is now in progress. Other studies indicate that certain catechins in tea may reduce your risk of skin cancer. Animal studies have tended to show more value of tea in preventing cancers than in human studies, perhaps because of the differences in diet, environment and genetics in humans.
In earlier studies, researchers from the Harvard Boston Area Health study showed that men and women who consumed one or more cups per day of green tea in the previous year had a 44 percent lower risk of a heart attack than those who drank no tea.
Other studies indicate that regular drinking of green tea or oolong tea may reduce the risk of developing high blood pressure despite the caffeine, especially when the tea is consumed with meals rather than on an empty stomach. Tea increases your body's production of nitric oxide, which dilates arteries and thereby reduces blood pressure. Green tea catechins have also been reported to have anti-bacterial, anti-viral and anti-fungal activity, especially in early stages of infection. These include some types of salmonella, influenza virus and herpes simplex. Also, green tea consumption has been associated with increased bone density and reduced hip fractures.
Some studies suggest that tea may help regulate your blood sugar and may even reduce the risk of diabetes. Flavonoids may have both insulin-like and insulin-enhancing activities. In Chinese medicine, tea helps to control obesity. A Chinese classical pharmaceutical book called the Bencao Shiyi states, ''Drinking tea for a long time will make one live long to stay in good shape without becoming too fat and too heavy." Tea may help reduce obesity by increasing metabolism, reducing fat absorption, activating enzymes and reducing appetite.
If that's not enough, drinking green tea may reduce your risk of cavities (especially if you don't add sugar to your tea) by inhibiting bacterial growth as well as potentiallyharmful enzymes in your mouth. Also, both green and black teas are natural sources of fluoride, which is why you may find tea as an ingredient in your toothpaste.
While not all studies have proven the health benefits of tea, the preponderance of studies show that tea may have significant health benefits. Clearly, more research needs to be done. However, the potential benefits of tea are so great, the side-effects relatively small (primarily, the effects of drinking caffeine), and the costs so low, I decided not to wait for more conclusive studies to be conducted. Coffee does not have the health benefits of tea. So, about 10 years ago, I switched.
Real men do drink tea, buddy. So do real women. Healthy ones
Oct. 3, 2006 - I love coffee. I love the way it smells. I love the way it tastes. (Although I'm so sensitive to caffeine, even a cup of coffee makes me talk as fast as Robin Williams might sound if he were on speed?and, hey, do you have to drive so slowly?) But I drink tea now. Most of the time.
Apparently, I'm not alone. Tea is the most widely consumed beverage in the world, other than water. Over 6.6 billion pounds of tea are produced each year.
Why? More and more research is documenting that what we include in our diet is as important as what we exclude. Tea contains a variety?perhaps thousands?of powerful, protective antioxidant substances called polyphenols, especially flavonoids such as catechins, that may help reduce the risk of some of the most common chronic diseases.
For example, a study was published two weeks ago in the Journal of the American Medical Association that followed more than 40,000 Japanese men and women over a seven- to eleven-year period. They found that green tea consumption was associated with a reduced mortality due to all causes except cancer.
The more green tea they drank, the lower their risk of dying early. Researchers found that that the overall risk of premature death due to illness was 26-percent lower among those who consumed five or more cups a day compared those who drank less than one cup per day of green tea after seven years of follow-up.
Interestingly, the effects of tea on reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease were not caused only by changes in traditional risk factors such as cholesterol levels or blood pressure. The polyphenols in green tea appear to have powerful antioxidant properties and are scavengers for free radicals that otherwise could damage your cells. These polyphenols may directly and beneficially affect coronary artery blockages (atherosclerosis), dilate your arteries, and also help reduce the formation of blood clots. Green tea also has significant anti-inflammatory effects. Black tea and oolong teas were not found to be quite as protective as green tea.
This is not surprising. Teas are categorized by the level of fermentation: green tea is unfermented (and so retains the original color of the tea leaves), oolong tea is partially fermented, and black tea is fermented (which makes it dark in color). The process of fermentation reduces the protective activity of the flavonoids, which are highest in green tea, intermediate in oolong tea, and lowest in black tea. On the other hand, caffeine is highest in black tea, intermediate in oolong, and lowest in green tea. The caffeine in green tea is also lower than in coffee or cola soft drinks.
Unfortunately, about 77 percent of the tea produced and consumed in the world is black tea, only 21 percent is green tea, and less than 2 percent is oolong tea, according to a recent study in the International Journal of Cardiology. The total concentration of the protective catechins in the blood after drinking green tea is three times higher than after drinking black tea. Still, while green tea is best, all teas have been shown to have health benefits.
While the Japanese researchers did not find that tea reduced the risk of cancer, other studies have. Animal studies have shown that green tea may inhibit cancer formation of the skin, lung, oral cavity, esophagus, stomach, liver, kidney, prostate and other organs. In humans, studies suggest that drinking tea may reduce the risk of digestive cancers. For example, a study of more than 35,000 postmenopausal women in Iowa, published in the American Journal of Epidemiology in 1996, found that those who drank more than two cups per day of tea were 32 percent less likely to have cancers throughout their digestive tract, including reduced cancers of the mouth, esophagus, stomach, colon and rectum. Four or more cups per day of tea lowered the risk of such cancers by 63 percent. Some (but not all) studies with varying degrees of rigor suggest that drinking tea may reduce the risk of early-stage breast, prostate, ovarian and lung cancer. In one study, green-tea extract was found to stimulate prostate cancer cell death. The evidence was strong enough to interest the National Cancer Institute in conducting a phase II study of green-tea extract in men with metastatic prostate cancer, which is now in progress. Other studies indicate that certain catechins in tea may reduce your risk of skin cancer. Animal studies have tended to show more value of tea in preventing cancers than in human studies, perhaps because of the differences in diet, environment and genetics in humans.
In earlier studies, researchers from the Harvard Boston Area Health study showed that men and women who consumed one or more cups per day of green tea in the previous year had a 44 percent lower risk of a heart attack than those who drank no tea.
Other studies indicate that regular drinking of green tea or oolong tea may reduce the risk of developing high blood pressure despite the caffeine, especially when the tea is consumed with meals rather than on an empty stomach. Tea increases your body's production of nitric oxide, which dilates arteries and thereby reduces blood pressure. Green tea catechins have also been reported to have anti-bacterial, anti-viral and anti-fungal activity, especially in early stages of infection. These include some types of salmonella, influenza virus and herpes simplex. Also, green tea consumption has been associated with increased bone density and reduced hip fractures.
Some studies suggest that tea may help regulate your blood sugar and may even reduce the risk of diabetes. Flavonoids may have both insulin-like and insulin-enhancing activities. In Chinese medicine, tea helps to control obesity. A Chinese classical pharmaceutical book called the Bencao Shiyi states, ''Drinking tea for a long time will make one live long to stay in good shape without becoming too fat and too heavy." Tea may help reduce obesity by increasing metabolism, reducing fat absorption, activating enzymes and reducing appetite.
If that's not enough, drinking green tea may reduce your risk of cavities (especially if you don't add sugar to your tea) by inhibiting bacterial growth as well as potentiallyharmful enzymes in your mouth. Also, both green and black teas are natural sources of fluoride, which is why you may find tea as an ingredient in your toothpaste.
While not all studies have proven the health benefits of tea, the preponderance of studies show that tea may have significant health benefits. Clearly, more research needs to be done. However, the potential benefits of tea are so great, the side-effects relatively small (primarily, the effects of drinking caffeine), and the costs so low, I decided not to wait for more conclusive studies to be conducted. Coffee does not have the health benefits of tea. So, about 10 years ago, I switched.
Real men do drink tea, buddy. So do real women. Healthy ones
Medicare's Cheapest Drug Plans in U.S. to Cost 44 Percent More
From Bloomberg: By Kerry Young
Oct. 13 (Bloomberg) -- The cheapest drug insurance policies under Medicare will cost elderly and disabled Americans 44 percent more next year, based on rate quotes published by the government health program.
The average monthly outlay for the least expensive plans will rise to $13.58 from $9.46, according to data compiled by Medicare. Humana Inc., the biggest provider of low-cost drug plans, raised prices as much as fivefold, while Medicare cut its monthly subsidy by 15 percent, to $80 a person, said Peter Ashkenaz, a Medicare agency spokesman.
Americans who are at least 65 and those with disabilities pay monthly premiums for the drug coverage under a U.S. program that started last January. Insurance companies last year charged as little as $1.87 for policies providing discounts on medicines. For next year, the cheapest plan will cost $9.50. Many of the 23 million people in the Medicare drug program pay premiums out of Social Security pensions, averaging $922.70 a month.
``Many people are going to feel that they are victims of a bait-and-switch tactic,'' said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a Washington-based nonprofit group that studies health care, in an Oct. 3 telephone interview. ``There's no question that it will be an extraordinary disappointment.''
Congress created the Medicare drug benefit three years ago to help the elderly buy medicines. The price of almost 200 prescription treatments often used by older people rose 6.3 percent in the 12 months through June, according to AARP, the largest lobbying group for American 50 and older.
The drug plan next year will account for about 12 percent of Medicare's $445 billion budget, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Medicare pays insurance companies to negotiate bulk discounts on medicines such as Pfizer Inc.'s Lipitor cholesterol drug, which can cost more than $3 a pill.
Wrong Number
An analysis by Representative Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, found that the average monthly payment for all Medicare plans will rise to $29.09 next year from $25.69. The plans include those with enhanced benefits, in which customers accept a higher premium in return for payment of drug costs between $2,400 and $3,850, which aren't covered by Medicare.
The average price is about 21 percent, or $4.09, more than claimed by the Department of Health and Human Services, Waxman's office said. HHS and Medicare officials released next year's prices Sept. 29, saying the average monthly premium would remain unchanged at $24.
``The department's numbers appear to be wrong, and they disguise significant increase in premiums for Medicare drug plans,'' Waxman said in a letter to HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt. ``The release of erroneous information about the cost of premiums -- whether deliberate or not --is a disservice to millions of seniors.''
`Incomplete and Misleading'
Medicare said in a statement that its average was derived from a ``straightforward'' analysis of the plans available to consumers.
``The congressman's analysis is incomplete and misleading because it is selective, measuring just one of the plan options beneficiaries can use to get their prescription drugs,'' said Mark McClellan, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, in the statement.
McClellan declined through a spokesman to be interviewed on the premium data for this article.
``There really is no low-cost option any longer,'' said Gerard Anderson, a professor of public health at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, in an Oct. 4 interview.
The minimum prices will more than double in 13 states. People in seven more states and the District of Columbia also will pay more than double next year if they stick with their current plans.
New York
New Yorkers will have to join HIP Health Plan of New York to get the cheapest drug plan for next year at $9.50 a month. Humana, the state's low-cost option this year at $4.10 a month, set $14.80 as its lowest rate in the state next year.
``Most people don't know what is happening yet,'' said Deane Beebe, a spokeswoman for the New York-based Medicare Rights Center, in an Oct. 5 interview.
The biggest jump will take place in the seven states with the lowest 2006 premiums. The minimum monthly cost of the cheapest Humana plan will jump to $10.60 from $1.87 in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Montana, Wyoming and North and South Dakota.
``I knew it wasn't going to stay that low,'' said Janet Hackleman, manager of Wyoming's State Health Insurance Information Program, in an Oct. 2 interview. ``Everyone is sorry that it had to come up. Now, it's a little more realistic.''
Humana, UnitedHealth
Humana never meant to offer such a bargain price for Medicare drug insurance, said Tom Noland, a spokesman for the Louisville, Kentucky-based company. Humana misjudged what other companies would bid, he said. Humana's offer was so much lower than rivals that it skewed a Medicare benchmark and reduced the cost of the benefit for consumers, he said.
``We did not bid $1.87,'' he said. ``We bid higher than that.'' Medicare cut Humana's prices by $7 a month on average last year and raised them by $4 this year, he said.
WellCare Health Plans Inc. and UnitedHealth Group Inc. introduced more low-cost offerings for next year compared with last year.
To contact the reporter on this story: Kerry Young in Washington kdooley@bloomberg.net
Democrats challenge EPA pesticide rule
(AP) -- Three Democrats in Congress have added their names to a lawsuit seeking to end any pesticide testing on children by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida and Sen. Barbara Boxer and Rep. Hilda Solis, both of California, said Thursday they have joined a lawsuit against EPA by the Natural Resources Defense Council. The group is suing EPA to end pesticide testing on pregnant women and infants. The lawmakers say a new rule from EPA fails to implement the ban required by Congress last year to protect vulnerable people from harmful pesticide testing. They contend the rule prohibits the use of data collected from pesticide testing on pregnant women and children but allows the testing to continue. "Pregnant women, infants and children have been and likely still will be used as human guinea pigs in pesticide testing," Nelson said. "It must be stopped." EPA spokeswoman Jennifer Wood said the agency always works to ensure the health and safety of the most vulnerable populations, including pregnant women and children. Congress in July 2005 imposed a one-year moratorium on testing pesticides on humans and gave EPA six months to issue a new rule to prevent testing on pregnant women and children. That occurred after Boxer and Nelson demanded that EPA cancel an industry-backed pesticide study on the families of 60 children in Duval County, Fla. They had been due to receive children's clothes, a camcorder and $970 for participating.
EPA in January for the first time established criteria for tests by pesticide makers on human subjects and said it would not approve any new such testing involving pregnant women and children. Wood said Thursday, however, that in rare cases EPA would accept pesticide test data involving pregnant women and children, but only if that data indicated that a more stringent health standard is needed to further restrict use of the pesticide. NRDC then sued EPA over the new rule for what the group called "unethical, illegal human pesticide testing." In a friend-of-the-court brief, Nelson, Boxer and Solis urged a federal appeals court to order EPA to create a new rule that complies with Congress's intent to ban testing on pregnant women, infants and children. --- On the Net: EPA: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer
Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida and Sen. Barbara Boxer and Rep. Hilda Solis, both of California, said Thursday they have joined a lawsuit against EPA by the Natural Resources Defense Council. The group is suing EPA to end pesticide testing on pregnant women and infants. The lawmakers say a new rule from EPA fails to implement the ban required by Congress last year to protect vulnerable people from harmful pesticide testing. They contend the rule prohibits the use of data collected from pesticide testing on pregnant women and children but allows the testing to continue. "Pregnant women, infants and children have been and likely still will be used as human guinea pigs in pesticide testing," Nelson said. "It must be stopped." EPA spokeswoman Jennifer Wood said the agency always works to ensure the health and safety of the most vulnerable populations, including pregnant women and children. Congress in July 2005 imposed a one-year moratorium on testing pesticides on humans and gave EPA six months to issue a new rule to prevent testing on pregnant women and children. That occurred after Boxer and Nelson demanded that EPA cancel an industry-backed pesticide study on the families of 60 children in Duval County, Fla. They had been due to receive children's clothes, a camcorder and $970 for participating.
EPA in January for the first time established criteria for tests by pesticide makers on human subjects and said it would not approve any new such testing involving pregnant women and children. Wood said Thursday, however, that in rare cases EPA would accept pesticide test data involving pregnant women and children, but only if that data indicated that a more stringent health standard is needed to further restrict use of the pesticide. NRDC then sued EPA over the new rule for what the group called "unethical, illegal human pesticide testing." In a friend-of-the-court brief, Nelson, Boxer and Solis urged a federal appeals court to order EPA to create a new rule that complies with Congress's intent to ban testing on pregnant women, infants and children. --- On the Net: EPA: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer
New device helps patients to grow back own teeth
From "the postman" by RACHEL WILLIAMS
SCIENTISTS have created a device that can make human teeth grow back.
The tiny ultrasound machine fits into a patient's mouth on a braces bracket or a removable plastic crown, where it gently massages gums and stimulates dental growth from the root.
It is wireless and is controlled by a pocket-sized remote carried by the user.
The team at the University of Alberta in Canada hope the low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) system, which is smaller than a pea, will be available to the public within two years.
It is currently being designed to help repair fractured or diseased teeth, but in the future could help sports players or children who have a tooth knocked out. And eventually the same technology could even be used to grow bones, raising the possibility that people could make themselves taller.
Dr Tarak El-Bialy, one of the lead researchers, said the tool meant broken roots could now be fixed.
"And because we can regrow the tooth root, a patient could have his own tooth rather than foreign objects in his mouth," he said.
The system needs to be activated for 20 minutes a day for four weeks for noticeable results.
SCIENTISTS have created a device that can make human teeth grow back.
The tiny ultrasound machine fits into a patient's mouth on a braces bracket or a removable plastic crown, where it gently massages gums and stimulates dental growth from the root.
It is wireless and is controlled by a pocket-sized remote carried by the user.
The team at the University of Alberta in Canada hope the low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) system, which is smaller than a pea, will be available to the public within two years.
It is currently being designed to help repair fractured or diseased teeth, but in the future could help sports players or children who have a tooth knocked out. And eventually the same technology could even be used to grow bones, raising the possibility that people could make themselves taller.
Dr Tarak El-Bialy, one of the lead researchers, said the tool meant broken roots could now be fixed.
"And because we can regrow the tooth root, a patient could have his own tooth rather than foreign objects in his mouth," he said.
The system needs to be activated for 20 minutes a day for four weeks for noticeable results.
Synthetic molecule causes cancer cells to self-destruct
From Eurekalert:
CHAMPAIGN, Ill. -- Scientists have found a way to trick cancer cells into committing suicide. The novel technique potentially offers an effective method of providing personalized anti-cancer therapy. Most living cells contain a protein called procaspase-3, which, when activated, changes into the executioner enzyme caspase-3 and initiates programmed cell death, called apoptosis. In cancer cells, however, the signaling pathway to procaspase-3 is broken. As a result, cancer cells escape destruction and grow into tumors.
"We have identified a small, synthetic compound that directly activates procaspase-3 and induces apoptosis," said Paul J. Hergenrother, a professor of chemistry at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and corresponding author of a paper to be posted online this week ahead of regular publication by the journal Nature Chemical Biology. "By bypassing the broken pathway, we can use the cells' own machinery to destroy themselves."
To find the compound, called procaspase activating compound one (PAC-1), Hergenrother, with colleagues at the U. of I., Seoul National University, and the National Center for Toxicological Research, screened more than 20,000 structurally diverse compounds for the ability to change procaspase-3 into caspase-3.
The researchers tested the compound's efficacy in cell cultures and in three mouse models of cancer. The testing was performed in collaboration with William Helferich, a professor of food science and human nutrition at the U. of I., and Myung-Haing Cho at Seoul National University. The researchers also showed that PAC-1 killed cancer cells in 23 tumors obtained from a local hospital.
Cell death was correlated with the level of procaspase-3 present in the cells, with more procaspase-3 resulting in cell death at lower concentrations of PAC-1.
"This is the first in what could be a host of organic compounds with the ability to directly activate executioner enzymes," said Hergenrother, who is also an affiliate of the Institute for Genomic Biology at the U. of I. "The potential effectiveness of compounds such as PAC-1 could be predicted in advance, and patients could be selected for treatment based on the amount of procaspase-3 found in their tumor cells."
Such personalized medicine strategies are preferential to therapies that rely on general cytotoxins, the researchers say, and could be the future of anti-cancer therapy.
CHAMPAIGN, Ill. -- Scientists have found a way to trick cancer cells into committing suicide. The novel technique potentially offers an effective method of providing personalized anti-cancer therapy. Most living cells contain a protein called procaspase-3, which, when activated, changes into the executioner enzyme caspase-3 and initiates programmed cell death, called apoptosis. In cancer cells, however, the signaling pathway to procaspase-3 is broken. As a result, cancer cells escape destruction and grow into tumors.
"We have identified a small, synthetic compound that directly activates procaspase-3 and induces apoptosis," said Paul J. Hergenrother, a professor of chemistry at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and corresponding author of a paper to be posted online this week ahead of regular publication by the journal Nature Chemical Biology. "By bypassing the broken pathway, we can use the cells' own machinery to destroy themselves."
To find the compound, called procaspase activating compound one (PAC-1), Hergenrother, with colleagues at the U. of I., Seoul National University, and the National Center for Toxicological Research, screened more than 20,000 structurally diverse compounds for the ability to change procaspase-3 into caspase-3.
The researchers tested the compound's efficacy in cell cultures and in three mouse models of cancer. The testing was performed in collaboration with William Helferich, a professor of food science and human nutrition at the U. of I., and Myung-Haing Cho at Seoul National University. The researchers also showed that PAC-1 killed cancer cells in 23 tumors obtained from a local hospital.
Cell death was correlated with the level of procaspase-3 present in the cells, with more procaspase-3 resulting in cell death at lower concentrations of PAC-1.
"This is the first in what could be a host of organic compounds with the ability to directly activate executioner enzymes," said Hergenrother, who is also an affiliate of the Institute for Genomic Biology at the U. of I. "The potential effectiveness of compounds such as PAC-1 could be predicted in advance, and patients could be selected for treatment based on the amount of procaspase-3 found in their tumor cells."
Such personalized medicine strategies are preferential to therapies that rely on general cytotoxins, the researchers say, and could be the future of anti-cancer therapy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
