DISCOVER Magazine. Science, Technology and The Future
Current Issue
Subscribe Today »
  • Renew
  • Give a Gift
  • Archives
  • Customer Service
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Newsletter
  • Health & Medicine
  • Mind & Brain
  • Technology
  • Space
  • Human Origins
  • Living World
  • Environment
  • Physics & Math
  • Video
  • Photos
  • Podcast
  • RSS
Not Exactly Rocket Science
« Hagfish filmed choking sharks with slime, and actively hunting fish
A recipe for growing bigger hearts, found in the blood of pythons »

From unknown cancer gene to potential cancer drug

It’s a seemingly simple idea: if you can find the genetic changes that turn normal cells into cancerous ones, you could find new ways of treating cancer. But that’s easier said than done. The genome of a cancer cell is a chaotic mess. Typos build up throughout its DNA, corrupting the encoded information. Entire sections can be flipped, relocated, doubled and deleted. Some of these changes drive the cells to grow and multiply uncontrollably; others are irrelevant passengers that are just along for the ride. Separating the former form the latter is like finding a needle in a haystack made of needles.

And that’s exactly what Elisa Oricchio from the Sloan-Kettering Memorial Cancer Center has done. Using powerful genetic techniques, she has identified a gene – EPHA7 – whose loss can lead to a sluggish but hard-to-treat type of lymphoma called follicular lymphoma. The gene encodes a protein of the same name, and Oricchio even used the EPHA7 protein to shrink the size of tumours in mice with lymphoma.

Oricchio is still a long way from a drug that could treat human patients, but she has already taken several important steps. Mere months ago, no one knew about EPHA7’s role in lymphoma. Now, the team is already working on developing it into a potential treatment. It’s a stark reminder of the power of modern genetics, and the promise that it heralds for cancer research.

Follicular lymphomas tend to grow slowly, and while they’re incurable, they can also be kept under control for years or decades. With the use of new antibodies like rituximab, people could soon expect to survive up to 20 years after a diagnosis. That all sounds rosy, but these cancers are very common and many people suffer multiple relapses. The laid-back tumours also have a habit of transforming into a much more aggressive type that’s hard to treat and spreads rapidly.

Oricchio analysed the genomes of 64 follicular lymphomas and found 92 genetic changes that occurred in at least ten percent of them. One such change stood out – a quarter of the tumours were missing a big chunk of their sixth chromosome called 6q. Other studies have found something similar, and some scientists have shown that people who are missing this segment have poorer odds of survival. There must be something in the missing segment that normally keeps cancer at bay, but it’s so large and varied that the identity of the key gene (or genes) isn’t obvious.

To narrow things down, Oricchio systematically silenced every single gene within the missing piece of chromosome. She used small RNA molecules designed to take them out of play individually. Again, one candidate stood out – EPHA7. Without it, mice were more likely to develop follicular lymphomas, and they did so more quickly. “We have known for a long time that 6q is deleted in many cases of lymphoma, but until this study, we had little information as to which genes might be implicated,” says Peter Johnson from the University of Southampton, who wasn’t involved in the study.

When Oricchio looked at a broader collection of follicular lymphomas, she found that EPHA7 is completely inactivated in around three quarters of them. Whether deleted outright or tagged in way that makes it unreadable, it no longer does its job.

EPHA7 is a jack of many trades: it helps to carry chemical signals between cells, it’s active when embryos are developing, and it’s important for the development the nervous system. The gene produces two different proteins – a full-length version that stays on the surface of cells, and a shortened one that can be shed. Oricchio found that white blood cells (the ones that give rise to lymphomas) only produce the shortened version. This abridged protein blocks a network of genes that can fuel the development of lymphoma. EPHA7, it turns out, is a “tumour suppressor”, one of a number of genes that keep cancers in check.

So, losing the EPHA7 gene, and the short protein that it produces, increases the risk of lymphoma. But how do you fix the problem? One option would be to go into the cells and add back the missing gene. But there was an alternative. The EPHA7 protein is shed from cells and dissolves in liquid, so it should be possible to compensate for its loss by simply purifying it and injecting it back into tumours.

Oricchio did just that, and found that the restored protein can protect against tumours. In mice with human lymphomas, the extra dose of EPHA7 stopped the cancer cells from growing, prompted them to kill themselves, and forced the tumours to shrink. Oricchio even managed to target the protein directly to the tumours, by fusing it to an antibody called rituximab, which homes in on lymphoma cells. The antibody acts as a guidance system that sends an EPHA7 missile to the right target.

EPHA7 is also lost in other types of lymphoma and possibly other types of cancer, including prostate, lung, stomach and bowel. Perhaps restoring the missing protein could also help to treat these cancers. There’s still a lot of research to do, though. Next, Oricchio wants to work out which part of the EPHA7 protein keeps lymphoma at bay, for a smaller fragment would be easier to make and deliver. She also wants to compare the protein to current treatments, such as rituximab on its own.

As Erika Check Hayden brilliantly argues here, simply sequencing the genes of a cancer isn’t always enough to pinpoint clues that will lead to treatments. However, sequencing might hold more promise when people combine it with other powerful genetic techniques, as Oricchio has done. “This is a great example of how new genetic studies can not only dissect out the genes involved in lymphoma development, but can also point out whole new lines of treatment, using changes in the malignant  cells as their Achilles’ heel,” says Johnson.

Reference: Oricchio, Nanjangud, Wolfe, Schatz, Konstantinos, Mavrakis, Jiang, Liu, Bruno, Heguy, Olshen, Socci, Teruya-Feldstein, Weis-Garcia, Tam, Shaknovich, Melnick, Himanen, Chaganti & Wendel. 2011. The Eph-Receptor A7 Is a Soluble Tumor Suppressor for Follicular Lymphoma. Cell http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2011.09.035

Image by Euthman

Share

October 27th, 2011 by Ed Yong in Cancer, Medicine & health | 2 comments | RSS feed | Trackback >

2 Responses to “From unknown cancer gene to potential cancer drug”

  1. 1.   Ron Kaminsky Says:
    October 30th, 2011 at 3:32 am

    > by fusing it to an antibody called rituximab

    You talked about this antibody previously, but your phrasing makes it seem like your mentioning it for the first time. I found this confusing.

  2. 2.   Sophia Says:
    December 1st, 2011 at 3:06 pm

    May I point out that when you say “people could soon expect to survive up to 20 years after a diagnosis” you probably want to say: “the median survival time for patients could soon reach up to 20 years”.

    Some patients do survive more than 20 years with fNHL already, and depending on the subgroup of patients analysed even the median survival tops 20 years in some publications. Sentences like yours unnecessarily scare patients and are a misinterpretation of survival statistics.

Leave a Reply





    • About Not Exactly Rocket Science



      Ed Yong is an award-winning British science writer. His work has appeared in New Scientist, the Times, WIRED, the Guardian, Nature and more. Not Exactly Rocket Science is his attempt to talk about the awe-inspiring, beautiful and quirky world of science to as many people as possible.

      My personal website with biography, other writing, speaking engagements, and more

      Some interviews with me
      Some awards that I’ve won
      Who my readers are: 2008, 2009 and 2010 editions
      A complete list of posts from this blog

      Follow me on Twitter or Google+

      Contact me on edyong209[at]googlemail[dot]com

    • Support

    • What others say

      "One of the best sites for in-depth analysis of interesting scientific papers" - The Times

      "One of the smartest science bloggers I read... a prime practitioner among the new generation of scientifically authoritative bloggers" - David Rowan, editor of Wired UK

      "Engaging and jargon-free multimedia storytelling about science and the digital age" - National Academy of Sciences

      "A consistently illuminating home for long, thoughtful, and thorough explorations of science news" - National Association of Science Writers

      "Head and shoulders above many broadsheet hacks" - Ben Goldacre

      "Ed Yong... is made of pure unobtanium and rides TWO Toruks." - Frank Swain

      "Ed Yong is better than chocolate, fairy lights, and kittens chasing yarn. That is all." - Christine Ottery

    • Do you want to be a science writer?

      Read origin stories and advice from over 130 science writers from around the world.
    • Not Exactly Rocket Science content

      RSS Recent Posts

      Recent Posts

      • Neurons transplanted into mouse spines reverse chronic pain
      • Virtual resurrection shows that early four-legged animal couldn’t walk very well
      • New sense organ helps giant whales to coordinate the world’s biggest mouthfuls
      • Here’s where all the magic happens
      • Blind mice regain sight after scientists persuade their optic nerves to grow
      • I’ve got your missing links right here (19 May 2012)
      • Meet the paralysed woman who commandeered a robotic arm
      • Deep-sea bacteria redefine life in the slow lane
      Categories

      Categories

      Archives

      Archives

      • May 2012
      • April 2012
      • March 2012
      • February 2012
      • January 2012
      • December 2011
      • November 2011
      • October 2011
      • September 2011
      • August 2011
      • July 2011
      • June 2011
      • May 2011
      • April 2011
      • March 2011
      • February 2011
      • January 2011
      • December 2010
      • November 2010
      • October 2010
      • September 2010
      • August 2010
      • July 2010
      • June 2010
      • May 2010
      • April 2010
      • March 2010
      • February 2010
      • January 2010
      • December 2009
      • November 2009
      • October 2009
      • September 2009
      • August 2009
      • July 2009
      • June 2009
      • May 2009
      • April 2009
      • March 2009
      • February 2009
      • January 2009
      • December 2008
      • November 2008
      • October 2008
      • September 2008
      • August 2008
      • July 2008
      • June 2008
      • May 2008
      • April 2008
      • March 2008
      • February 2008
    • RSS Twitter

    • My wife, who makes it all possible

      Alice.jpg
    • Blogroll

      Science blogs

      Science blogs

      • 80 Beats
      • A Blog Around the Clock
      • Adventures in Ethics and Science
      • Aetiology
      • Alice Bell
      • Ars Technica
      • Arthropoda
      • Atlantic Science
      • Babel's Dawn
      • Bad Astronomy
      • Bad Science
      • BPS Research Digest Blog
      • Cancer Research UK Science Update Blog
      • Child's Play
      • Cocktail Party Physics
      • Collision Detection
      • Culture Dish
      • Culturing Science
      • Deep Sea News
      • Discoblog + NCBI ROFL
      • Dot Earth
      • Dr Petra Boynton
      • Drugmonkey
      • EarthLab
      • Embargo Watch
      • Epiphenom
      • Evolving Thoughts
      • Finite Attention Span
      • Fistful of Science
      • Gary Schwitzer's HealthNewsReview
      • Gene Expression
      • Genetic Future
      • Genomeboy
      • Genomicron
      • Gimpy's Blog
      • Highly Allochthonous
      • Ionian Enchantment
      • JL Vernon Presents American Psico
      • Joanne Loves Science
      • John Pavlus
      • Just a Theory
      • Lab Rat
      • Laelaps
      • Last Word on Nothing
      • Lay Scientist
      • Loom
      • Mark Changizi
      • Mind Hacks
      • Myrmecos
      • Neuroanthropology
      • Neurologica
      • Neuron Culture
      • Neurophilosophy
      • Neurotic Physiology (SciCurious)
      • Neurotribes
      • Obesity Panacea
      • Observations of a Nerd
      • On Becoming a Domestic and Laboratory Goddess
      • Open Minds and Parachutes
      • Political Science (Evan Harris)
      • Predictably Irrational
      • Retraction Watch
      • Save Your Breath for Running Ponies
      • Schooner of Science
      • Science Punk
      • ScienceLine
      • ScienceLush
      • Sentence First
      • Sex, Drugs and Rockin' Venom – Confessions of an Extreme Scientist
      • Skepchick
      • Speakeasy Science
      • Superbug
      • Take as Directed
      • Terra Sigillata
      • Tetrapod Zoology
      • The Artful Amoeba
      • The Chicken or the Egg
      • The Examining Room of Dr Charles
      • The Flying Trilobite
      • The Frontal Cortex
      • The Gleaming Retort
      • The Great Beyond
      • The Intersection
      • The Inverse Square Blog
      • The Millikan Daily
      • The Primate Diaries
      • The Science Project
      • Thoughtomics
      • Thus Spake Zuska
      • TYWKIWDBI
      • Vagina Dentata
      • Voyages Around my Camera
      • Weird Bug Lady
      • White Coat Underground
      • Why Evolution is True
      • Wild Muse
      • Wired Science
      • Words of Science
      • XKCD
      • Zooillogix
      Other blogs

      Other blogs

      • Cafe Philos
      • Miss Cellania
    • NetworkedBlogs
      Blog:
      Not Exactly Rocket Science
      Topics:
      science, biology, news
       
      Follow my blog


  • Kalmbach Publishing Co.

    Copyright © 2012, Kalmbach Publishing Co.

    Privacy - Terms - Reader Services - Subscribe Today - Advertise - About Us