|
Post by MaybeNever on Aug 12, 2011 22:49:08 GMT -5
I like to imagine this being like a clash of the titans, or something like Alien vs. Predator. I think Riddick is more apt here, although the principle is the same. P.S. Hell yeah, Sweet Bro and Hella Jeff. Where making this hapen!
|
|
|
Post by A Reasonable Rat on Aug 12, 2011 22:50:20 GMT -5
I would say that the modified cells aren't more likely to mutate than the native T-cells or other immune system cells, it's just that they multiply so much faster that the likelihood of mutation is a lot higher in proportion. People get immune syndromes all the time when their systems go haywire, so it would have to be a studied and calculated risk. However, if these modified cells stop multiplying and just die out after a set number of generations, it wouldn't be a problem.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Aug 13, 2011 9:29:24 GMT -5
I would say that the modified cells aren't more likely to mutate than the native T-cells or other immune system cells, it's just that they multiply so much faster that the likelihood of mutation is a lot higher in proportion. People get immune syndromes all the time when their systems go haywire, so it would have to be a studied and calculated risk. However, if these modified cells stop multiplying and just die out after a set number of generations, it wouldn't be a problem. 1) They aren't multiplying any faster, nothing about that was changed. 2) All cells stop multiplying after a set number of generations.
|
|
|
Post by A Reasonable Rat on Aug 13, 2011 11:55:05 GMT -5
1) They aren't multiplying any faster, nothing about that was changed. 2) All cells stop multiplying after a set number of generations. Uh, Vene? Correct me if I'm wrong here... As far as I know, normal white blood cells don't multiply at all, they're generated by blood marrow. However, this part of the article, which has been quoted before: really strongly suggests to me that these cells have been modified to multiply. And any form of self-replication among WBCs is both 'faster' and abnormal. Maybe the article is wrong about that? Or the quote is misleading? I don't know how exactly a virus could prompt these cells to self-replicate.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Aug 13, 2011 15:27:19 GMT -5
1) They aren't multiplying any faster, nothing about that was changed. 2) All cells stop multiplying after a set number of generations. Uh, Vene? Correct me if I'm wrong here... As far as I know, normal white blood cells don't multiply at all, they're generated by blood marrow. However, this part of the article, which has been quoted before: really strongly suggests to me that these cells have been modified to multiply. And any form of self-replication among WBCs is both 'faster' and abnormal. Maybe the article is wrong about that? Or the quote is misleading? I don't know how exactly a virus could prompt these cells to self-replicate. Cytokines can trigger them to self-replicate.
|
|
|
Post by A Reasonable Rat on Aug 13, 2011 17:47:27 GMT -5
So I'm guessing that by 'not multiplying faster' you mean that they're not multiplying faster than the usual rate for cells that normally multiply. As opposed to faster than normal for WBCs which is not at all.
The way the article puts it made me think 'The Trouble with Tribbles' in someone's bloodstream.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Aug 13, 2011 18:44:38 GMT -5
So I'm guessing that by 'not multiplying faster' you mean that they're not multiplying faster than the usual rate for cells that normally multiply. As opposed to faster than normal for WBCs which is not at all. The way the article puts it made me think 'The Trouble with Tribbles' in someone's bloodstream. I just told you, they can multiply. Cytokines are a chemical signal that prompts it.
|
|
|
Post by A Reasonable Rat on Aug 13, 2011 19:40:26 GMT -5
If you go back in the conversation a bit, I said that the cells were multiplying 'faster', because I was under the impression that the self-replicating WBCs were accelerated compared to how quickly normal bone marrow generates them. And then you said that they don't multiply 'faster'. Not if they do or not, but if they do so 'faster' than normally self-replicating cells or 'faster' than generated white blood cells.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Aug 13, 2011 20:10:43 GMT -5
If you go back in the conversation a bit, I said that the cells were multiplying 'faster', because I was under the impression that the self-replicating WBCs were accelerated compared to how quickly normal bone marrow generates them. And then you said that they don't multiply 'faster'. Not if they do or not, but if they do so 'faster' than normally self-replicating cells or 'faster' than generated white blood cells. Considering the only thing that was altered was a CD19 receptor, nothing about them is different in regards to growth. They are normal in every way except they can target tumors with leukemia instead of having to rely upon an antibody.
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Aug 13, 2011 22:47:30 GMT -5
My mind goes to watching my dad waste away over a very prolonged period of time from cancer. It's part of why I see this sort of research being so important (the other part is just basic compassion, and wishing well-being on people, as well as that it further shows that science is awesome). Even if there was a remote chance for an autoimmune disorder, it would be far preferable to certain, very soon death from cancer. Seeing my friend waste away to cancer while still in high school and then his cancer coming back just after we graduated and taking him from us, I have to agree. I wouldn't wish cancer on my worst enemy.
|
|
|
Post by A Reasonable Rat on Aug 15, 2011 0:51:15 GMT -5
Well then, that's great. The idea of them going haywire was the only concern I had, and if it can't happen, that puts my worry to rest. Like others in this thread, I've also lost people to cancers, and if this will stop any form of it, then that's worth celebrating.
|
|