NO, Not the fries!

Fries are my weakness, just by reading this article and no matter what scientists say, I just want to go out and get fries. Well the FDA is warning people to cut down on acrylamide.   This chemical is linked to cancer, acrylamide can form in plant-based, starchy foods when cooked at high-temperatures like baking or frying. Foods that contain acrylamide include french fries, coffee, crackers, toasted breads and dried fruits. I know almost everything causes cancer but why does it have to be french fries and coffee. The acrylamide chemical is created from sugars and an amino acid that is found in food,  but does not form in dairy, meat or fish products. Research on this chemical is relatively new, but it has been linked to higher rates of cancer in animals so it is thought to be a carcinogen for humans as well.

Steps to reduce acrylamide:

Stop consumption of one or two foods high in acrylamide

Boil or steams foods, this does not form acrylamide

Do not overcook or over crisp when frying

Cook potatoes till golden yellow not brown

Do not store potatoes in the refrigerator (the refrigerator increases the amount of acrylamide)

Bread should be toasted to light brown, very brown areas should not be eaten

Eat plenty of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and lean meats

Ok, so these steps are not so bad, but would you put down the fries? Would you go on this craze and do what they say or just continue to eat the same?

Here is the article if you would like to read it:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57612793/fda-avoid-acrylamide-in-fried-foods-due-to-cancer-risk/

Milk that can kill human stomach cancer cells?

A research team in Taiwan indicates that peptide fragment derived from cow’s milk can kill human stomach cancer cells. Three peptide fragments derived from lactoferricin B which is a peptide in milk were evaluated, only one of these fragments, LFcinB25 reduced the survival of human Gastric Adenocarcinoma cells. After an hour, LFcinB25 migrated to the cell membrane of the Gastric Adenocarcinoma cells, within 24 hours the cancer cells had shrunk in size and lost the ability to adhere to surfaces. This study also suggested Beclin-1 may enhance LFcinB25 cytotoxic action. Beclin-1 plays a central role in tumor growth. This study found that cleaved beclin-1 increase over time after LFcinB25 exposure. This will be used to potentially treat gastric cancer.

Should this study be further explored? Or should this be shut down? There are many studies out there to find a treatment, but what do you think is important in a good study?

Here is the article if you like to read it:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131107171001.htm

New Theory for Cancer Development

A team at Harvard Medical School has come up with a way to understand the aneuplodiy patterns in tumors and how to predict which genes affect chromosomes that are most likely to be cancer suppressors or promoters. This study proposed that aneuplodiy is a driver of cancer not a result of cancer.

Over the years, cancer research has focused on mutations that change the DNA and promotes cancer. The role of aneuplodiy has not been unstudied. This study predicts that the aneuploidy has a significant role in cancer. This prediction is because the missing or extra chromosomes likely affect genes that are involved in tumor related process.

This study was tested by a developed computer program called TUSON (Tumor Suppressor and Oncogene). This program analyzes the genome sequence from more than 8,200 pairs of cancerous and normal tissue samples. This generates a list of suspected oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes based on the mutation pattern. These also created a list of many more potential cancer drivers. From these lists, they discovered that the number of tumor suppressor genes or oncogenes in a chromosome correlated with how often the whole chromosome or part of the chromosome was deleted or duplicated in the cancer.

These concluded that aneuplody is a driver of cancer not a consequence of cancer. Since this has been discovered, studies can now be done to figure out how mutations, rearrangements and changes in expression weigh into cancer. They plan to gather experimental evidence to support this mathematical finding. Should they continue and explore this conclusion? Would this help researchers find a cure?

Here is the article if you would like to read it:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131031124918.htm

Unique Screening for Breast Cancer

I have often thought about how painful the test for detecting breast cancer is going to be. I know the pain will be worth it. But sometimes the pain is what keeps women from being tested, however, what if there was a painless way to detect breast cancer?  Looking at cancer news, a story from Louisville Kentucky writes about BRAS Thermography it is a screening with a highly sensitive camera. This camera uses thermography to detect what is coming off of the body. There is no radiation, no pain or compression. This screening takes 10 to 15 minutes and the results can be seen right away for the doctors to interpret the picture. The doctor looks for amount and type of inflammation and the asymmetry in the breast to detect if there is any growth. Of course pairing this with annual mammogram will help patients to have early detection.

 

This advancement is not recognized by the American Medical Association, but do you think it should be? Would you want to pair this will mammogram or just trust the thermograph itself?

 

Here is the story if you would like to read it:

http://www.wdrb.com/story/23799469/unique-screening-to-help-detect-breast-cancer

Vitamin Supplements Linked to Breast Cancer

My mom is very interested in what type of supplements can be used to help with the chances of surviving cancer. She asked me to look up herbal supplements that are under study for helping cancer patients survive; well I have finally found where there is a study linking breast cancer survival and vitamin supplements.

 

This study is not saying if you are developing breast cancer and you take multivitamin you are cured, but a link is seen that women who took multivitamin before they developed breast cancer have a 30% lower mortality rate. This study is involves vitamin D, which is related to a similar report that vitamin D has been found to lower the risk of breast cancer. The effect the vitamin D has to guard against the breast cancer is still unknown. Most studies that are done on this subject have not been to clinical trial but in an epidemiologic investigation. To have proof, clinical results are needed.

 

Another study done on older men who received vitamins experienced an 8% lower rate of most forms of cancer. This did not have any reduction in prostate cancer.

 

This study is different from another study stating that older women who took daily vitamin supplements had an increase risk of dying of cardiovascular disease and cancer. They say that the study is different simply by the fact that this study is based on women who already have cancer.

 

Based on the information from both studies, does this encourage you to take vitamin supplements? Do you think taking vitamin supplements will increase your longevity or decrease your risk of dying of cancer?

 

Here is the story if you would like to read it:

http://www.turnto23.com/news/breast-cancer-survival-vitamin-supplements-link-found-study-says-102013

Way to tell kids that sunscreen is a superhero against cancer

We all have heard either from our parents and/or grandparents don’t forget to put on sunscreen. What if they told us that sunscreen shields superhero genes that protect us from getting cancer, would that change your mind and apply sunscreen?

Queensland University of Technology did the world’s-first human study on the impact of sunscreen at the molecular level. It was found that sunscreen provides 100 % protection against all three forms of skin cancer and shields the p53 gene that prevents cancer.  If our skin is sun burned regularly, the p53 mutates and can no longer do its job. This study was done with proper supplication of SPF 30+ sunscreen.

Fifty-seven people underwent a series of skin biopsies to determine the molecular changes of the skin before and after UV exposure, some had sunscreen and others did not. After 24 hours where the sunscreen had been applied there was no DNA change to the skin. The skin could have been red but there has to be a change to the molecular structure to enhance cancer development. The molecular responses to UV expose can now be used to investigate post-sun treatments to assist in repair of sun damaged.

Most people think that they don’t burn and don’t need sunscreen but by reading this would they now use sunscreen? Does this change your mind on how you apply sunscreen? If you don’t use sunscreen will you start?

Here is the article if you would like to read it:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131008102551.htm

Just a Hint for New Treatments

In honor of breast cancer awareness month, here is another article on breast cancer. This article focuses on new models of drug-resistance breast cancer to hint at better treatments.

Researchers at Washington University School of Medicine are transplanting breast tumors into mice; this proved that mice are excellent models of metastatic cancer. Since mice are excellent models, they can be used to search for better treatments in cancer. The tumors that are transplanted maintain the genetic errors that cause the cancer and be help identify the drivers of the tumor growth.

The cells are taken from the patients and are grown in a mouse that has no immune system. The tumors that are growing in the mouse are similar to the cancer that is in the patient. The study differs from others by first sequencing the whole genomes of the patient’s and the mouse’s tumor to identify how closely the tumor resemble each other. This helps to identify new mutations that might appear to drive a strong drug resistance exhibited of the tumors. Most of the mutations are found in the estrogen receptor.

Over the years patients who have stopped responding to anti-hormonal agents have changes in the estrogen receptor. Estrogen receptor positive breast cancer is resistant to standard treatment and is driven by presence of estrogen. Researchers are hoping to have a clinical test that will tell patients if the estrogen receptor is mutated. This study is a good start for designing cures for metastatic breast cancer.

I know there are a lot of debates on using animals as test subjects, but is this study so bad? Would you agree with it, if it showed a possible cure for breast cancer?

Here is the article for information on this study: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-09-drug-resistant-breast-cancer-hint-treatments.html