[Wild Fragaria]

Well, this is another topic that is men related   People use virus as new medical treatment, and finding one that's associated with cancer is interesting.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/conditions/02/24/cancer.virus.ap/index.html

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- In a surprising discovery, researchers say they have found a virus in some prostate cancer patients, a finding that opens new research avenues in the most common major cancer among men in the United States.

The virus, closely related to one previously found only in mice, was found in cancerous prostates removed from men with a certain genetic defect. The researchers, with the University of California, San Francisco and the Cleveland Clinic, warn that they have not discovered any links between the virus and prostate cancer, but they were nonetheless excited about prospects for future research.

"It is a very exciting discovery," said Dr. Eric Klein of the Cleveland Clinic, who will present the findings Friday at an American Society of Clinical Oncology prostate symposium in San Francisco. "There is now a suggestion that prostate cancer could be caused by an infectious disease."

Infectious disease-causing viruses are already blamed for causing some liver cancers and cervical cancer. That has planted nagging suspicions in the minds of scientists that some diseases may play important roles alongside genetics, environment and chance in causing breast, stomach and several other forms of cancer.

Researchers are not sure how the virus infected people, but suspect it has been passed on genetically for thousands of years.

"This is a class of virus no one would have looked for in prostate cancer," said UCSF researcher Joe DeRisi, who developed the so-called "gene chip" that made the discovery. DeRisi's chip contains 20,000 snippets of vital genetic material from every known virus. It is the same chip that confirmed a previously undiscovered virus in the cold family that caused the SARS outbreak three years ago.

After hearing of that success, Klein sent samples of 86 cancerous prostates he removed from patients to DeRisi. DeRisi then placed DNA from the cancerous tissues on the chip, and DNA from eight of 20 patients with two copies of a mutated gene matched with DNA from the mouse virus.

The gene is a vital cog in the body's defense system, coding for an enzyme that helps kill invading viruses. The men with the mutated genes make fewer such enzymes than those with normal versions of the gene.

The virus was found in just one of the 66 other patients, suggesting that genetics play a significant role in the virus' connection to cancer.

The researchers said they will now test hundreds more prostate patients and are developing a diagnostic tool to test for the virus in the blood. That way they could test thousands of patients and non-patients alike and figure out if there is any link between prostate cancer and the virus, which causes cancer in mice.

The researchers also want to determine how widespread the virus is in humans and whether it is exclusive to prostate patients. Prostate cancer is the most frequent cancer and the second leading cause of death among men older than 50.

Others are expected to look for other potential viral links to prostate cancer beyond the well-trod investigative areas of environmental, racial and genetic backgrounds. Prostate cancer, for instance is found more often as men age, among blacks and the overweight than in the general populations. There also are hereditary links to prostate cancer.

Now, researchers have another, potential viral suspect to investigate.

"We haven't really been thinking along those lines," said Dr. Anthony Zietman, a radiation oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital. "This is an interesting finding that will takes off in a whole new direction."

[Flipside]

Any research that helps reduce or control prostate cancer is good research

[Wild Fragaria]

Yes, indeed.  A couple of friend and relative of my just die of cancer recently.

[Nix]

Something tells me that You're doing research on US. 

[Ace]

Nah, that would be me:

Age:
Sex:
Marital Status:
Number of Children:

List the top three things that are important to you in selecting a mate:
1.
2.
3.

TO MEASURE IMPORTANT FEATURES OF MATE ATTRACTION
1. How important or desirable are each of the following for choosing a mate? Rate each on a scale of 0-3 where 3 is indispensable and 0 is irrelevant.
Earning potential:
Ambition and industry:
Age:
Physical attraction:
Chastity:


TO MEASURE BEHAVIORAL EXPRESSION OF SOCIOSEXUAL VARIATION
2. With how many different partners have you had sex (sexual intercourse) within the last year?

3. How many different partners do you forsee youtself having sex with during the next five years?

4. With how many different partners have you had sex on one and only one occassion?


TO MEASURE COVERT SOCIOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR

5. How often do (did) you fantasize about having sex with someone other than your current (most recent) mating partner? 1 (never) to 8 (at least once a day)


TO MEASURE SOCIOSEXUAL ATTITUDES
Each is measured on a 1 (I strongly disagree) to 9 (I strongly agree) scale.

6. Sex without love is OK.

7. I can imagine myself being comfortable and enjoying "casual" sex with different partners.

8. I would have to be closely attached to someone (both emotionally and psycholoically) before I could feel comfortable and fully enjoy having sex with him or her.

Dr. Gaius Baltar is not allowed to answer this.

[karajorma]

I remember reading some ten years ago that some doctor was predicting that as research continued into cancer more and more links to virii would be found.

Sounds like he was right on the money.

[Charismatic]

What money. 

[Nuclear1]

Wow, it's actually pretty nice to have some non-political or videogame threads to discuss here. You do good around here, WF.

As for the article, another plus for medicine.

[Black Wolf]

What money.

...

You're weird...

[Wild Fragaria]

Science is great and I always enjoy reading scientific articles even if I am not working in the field

Glad to know you enjoy reading the articles as much as I do, nuclear1

That's interesting, Kara.  I have not yet looked at the original paper.  But I think it probably contains quite a bit of references from the last decade.

[karajorma]

IIRC the guy was looking at cancer in heart tissue and it was something quite new that cancer could be connected to viruses (except in the case of cervical cancer).

Since then they've found links to liver and bowel cancers so it does make you wonder if in most cases cancer is caused by a virus. Of course there are other factors that play a part (cell damage by mutagens is an obvious one). But it could be that although those things make you succeptible to cancer you need to actually catch the right virus to develop it.

It would be more than simply scientifically interesting if true. The discovery that the HPV is responsible for cervical cancer has already lead to a vaccine. It may be that mankind never finds a cure for cancer because we develop a vaccine for it instead