| Cancer researcher wins science writing prize Rare childhood cancers are the subject of an award-winning essay by Nicola Harris in this year's Max Perutz prizeMy palms are sweaty and my mouth is dry, but it's more excitement than nerves, though of course the nerves are there, too. I've got my cells out of the incubator and now I just can't resist having a quick glance at them down the microscope – will I see more dead cells floating in one set than the other? I know I can't tell properly till I add some staining solution and analyse them accurately, but that will take hours and I just can't wait that long to find out: has it worked or not?If you've ever held that envelope of exam results and been desperate to tear them open and find out how you did, but also terrified to look in case you didn't get what you were hoping for, then you'll know exactly the sort of feelings I'm talking about.I'm working on tumour cells from two childhood cancers, called neuroblastoma and Ewing's sarcoma. These are both very hard to treat, with less than half the children surviving for five years after their diagnosis. That's the problem with treating cancer: some patients do brilliantly on a particular drug, but for others it'll have little effect. At the moment, it's often a case of trial and error working out which drug is going work – and some people simply run out of time before we can find the right one. So what I'm trying to find out is what causes the differences in responses and how can we use that to our advantage.The drug I'm using is called fenretinide, and it's similar to vitamin A (the vitamin found in carrots). It's able to kill cancer cells, while normal cells remain healthy. It works by causing a build-up of oxidants in the cells (you'll all probably have seen the adverts for beauty creams offering anti-oxidant properties to get glowing skin – that's because oxidants are bad news for cells!). Normal, healthy cells should be able to cope with the presence of a few oxidants, but cancer cells will already be exposed to high levels as they're produced when cells divide, and so they can't cope with the extra oxidants produced from fenretinide treatment.Due to its similarity to vitamin A, fenretinide can get into receptors meant for that vitamin and so the main side effect with fenretinide treatment is that the patients get what's called night-blindness; basically, you can't see very well in the dark. This makes it particularly suitable for treating childhood cancers as it's a much easier side effect to deal with than many other treatments – it's easier to give a five-year-old a night light than to comfort them as they're losing their hair. The problem is that fenretinide seems to work really well for some neuroblastoma and Ewing's sarcoma tumours, but not others. And I want to know why!I've found that some of the tumours have more of an enzyme called CYP26 than others, and this enzyme helps to metabolise fenretinide in the body. Usually, you'd expect the patients to do worse if their body is breaking down the drug, but fenretinide is a little different. As well as the drug itself being able to kill cancer cells (what we call an "active" compound), one of the metabolites of fenretinide is also active. This means there could be an extra hit from this second compound to those cancer cells where there is metabolism occurring. This is the reason I'm desperately hoping to see more dead cells in some of my flasks than others – these should hopefully be the cells with more CYP26.So what would it mean if I'm right about the link between CYP26 and how many cancer cells die? There are a few options, actually – we could be selective and only give the drug to those whose cancer has been tested and shown to have CYP26, or there are other drugs that have been shown to increase concentrations of CYP26 in the body, so alternatively these could be used in combination with fenretinide. The important point is that we could decide on which drug or combination of drugs to use based on what should work for each particular patient, and that's what this is all about – taking the guesswork out of cancer treatment.I've already analysed these cells to see how much CYP26 they have, and then I've added the drug and left them to grow for a few days (having a quick peek every day to see how they're getting on). Now it's the moment of truth, as I look down the microscope and bring the cells into focus...The prizeThe Max Perutz Science Writing Award, now in its 13th year, encourages young Medical Research Council scientists to communicate their research to a wider audience. The competition is open to all MRC-funded PhD students and asks them to describe the importance and excitement of their research.The 2010 award received a record number of submissions, with 114 entries. Twelve essays were shortlisted and judged by the MRC's outgoing chief executive, Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, the Guardian's science and environment correspondent Alok Jha; the head of the MRC Centre, Cambridge, Dr Megan Davies; the former winner Dr Jacqueline Maybin; and the author and broadcaster Dr Alice Roberts.• Nicola Harris is at the Northern Institute of Cancer Research, Newcastle UniversityResearchCancerMedical researchHigher educationBiochemistry and molecular biologyPeople in scienceguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
2010 Gives West a Respite From Fire The fire season still has some weeks to go, but it is running neck and neck with the one in 2003 for the title of least severe. feeds.nytimes.com |
Science Knows Best Moral solutions do not reside in religion but in science, Sam Harris writes. feeds.nytimes.com |
Denver Zoo hatches 4 Komodo dragons By 2010-10-15T02:56:52ZDENVER (AP) -- The Denver Zoo says it's become the only zoo in the world to hatch endangered Komodo dragons for a third time.... hosted.ap.org |
Antarctic ice reveals trapped secrets of climate change Cores drilled from the icecap are going on show at London's Science Museum. The centuries-old information they contain could help scientists predict Earth's future weatherThey were found deep below Earth's surface, provide vital information about our climate's history and, for the first time, will be publicly displayed in their full freezing glory. Three pieces of ice core, drilled from the Antarctic icecap, one containing bubbles of air from the year 1410, will this week be installed in a glass-fronted freezer cabinet in the Science Museum in London's new Atmosphere gallery.Set for its opening by Prince Charles on Friday, the gallery has been designed to outline the basics of climate science and explain why researchers believe human activity is now having a pronounced impact on weather patterns. "This gallery will show how scientists have acquired their knowledge about Earth's climate history – with our ice cores providing some of the most telling examples," says museum director Chris Rapley.Air gets trapped by snow as it falls. Then more snow falls on top. Pressure builds up and snow is eventually converted into ice – with air bubbles trapped inside. The deeper you drill, the older the ice – and air bubbles – that you find. "If you drill several kilometres down you find samples that are almost a million years old," says Rapley. "That is why we think of ice cores as treasure troves of climate history."By drilling down to a particular layer, the oxygen isotopes in a core sample's air bubbles will tell you the global temperature for the time that the air was trapped in snowflakes. This temperature can then be compared with the air's carbon dioxide content. Similarly, salt and dust contamination provides information about sea levels and the spread of deserts across the globe at any given time over the last 800,000 years. Such information has been key to the prediction of future global weather patterns and will form an important background to this week's climate talks in Cancun, Mexico."The one critical feature we get from these measurements is that the temperature of Earth's atmosphere and its carbon dioxide content are locked together in a coupled system," adds Rapley. "If one of those variables increases, the other will also rise. Hence the worry about the amounts of carbon dioxide we pump into the atmosphere. If unchecked, these could lead to global temperature rises of up to six degrees Celsius by the end of the century."The Atmosphere gallery at the Science Museum, London SW7, is open opens to the public from Saturday, 4 DecemberClimate changeGlaciersAntarcticaMuseumsRobin McKieguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |