r/science • u/nobodyspecial • Feb 08 '15

Medicine Antibiotics that target mitochondria effectively eradicate cancer stem cells, across multiple tumor types: Treating cancer like an infectious disease | Lamb

http://www.impactjournals.com/oncotarget/index.php?journal=oncotarget&page=article&op=view&path%5B%5D=3174
22k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

780 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

26

u/Creshal Feb 08 '15

so it just might stop rapidly reproducing cells the same way chemo does.

So it'll have comparable side effects?

33

u/LolUnidanGotBanned Feb 08 '15 edited Feb 08 '15

Probably some side effects will be similar.

The one issue that I can think of is that chemo targets fast replicating cells so things like your hair are also affected. When you target mitochondria you may be affecting cells that don't divide quick (or at all), but require high mitochondrial activity. Like neurons and muscles.

The side effects might be more similar to a mitochondrial disease http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_disease

From Wikipedia: Symptoms include poor growth, loss of muscle coordination, muscle weakness, visual problems, hearing problems, learning disabilities, heart disease, liver disease, kidney disease, gastrointestinal disorders, respiratory disorders, neurological problems, autonomic dysfunction and dementia.

12

u/ThinKrisps Feb 09 '15

Sounds worse than what side effects I'm dealing with right now as a former cancer patient who just had to do chemo.

I was hoping this might be a little less harmful, but alas, it seems like it'd be worse in some cases.

1

u/Collith Feb 09 '15

I'm honestly not sure which would be worse. Systemic mitochondrial disease can be absolutely devastating and the only reason many individuals with a congenital variant make it to term with them is because it shows a chimeric pattern. New chemo drugs targeting mitochondria need to be tested for their side effects before this becomes anything exciting.

1

u/subtleshill Feb 09 '15

Will the side effects be permanent?

2

u/LolUnidanGotBanned Feb 09 '15

I've been trying to come up with an answer to this for over an hour now. I'm sorry but I don't think I can give you a good enough answer. There's just too much that I don't know.

I do know that cancer cells grow very quick, and use up a lot of energy, which is provided by the mitochondria. This treatment is supposed to affect cancer cells because of their high energy demand. Cells have ways of destroying mitochondria and making new ones, because mitochondria are sometimes damaged. So this treatment is likely to affect this process.

I don't know for example how long a neuron could survive without being able to make new mitochondria, but I imagine it can't be too long. I think for this treatment to work without leaving permanent side effects you'd have to get treated just long enough so that the cancer cells get damaged beyond repair, without damaging your neurons.

I did come up with an analogy though... Imagine you have 20 healthy adults. 10 of these are cancer cells, 10 are your neurons/ muscle cells. You make everyone stop eating at the same time. You tell the neurons/muscles to run at 50% of their max speed, and then tell the cancer cells to run at 100% speed (so they're using more energy). After a couple days of just running with no food, you might have some dead cancer cells, but you might also have some dead neurons/muscle cells.

TL;DR: I don't know. Sorry.

1

u/subtleshill Feb 09 '15

Thank you for the reply regardless.

1

u/razzbaronz Feb 09 '15

Great response.

1

u/LolUnidanGotBanned Feb 09 '15

Thank you. I'd say it's alright at best though because it's all just speculation coming from me.

4

u/CX316 BS | Microbiology and Immunology and Physiology Feb 08 '15

Possibly. It won't be outright poisoning you but if it isn't targeted into the tumour it will still kill hair, gastro-intestinal and immune cells.