Videos
CASE STUDY| Cancer-killing bacteria
Ralph, a 57-year-old man, was diagnosed with colon cancer. His oncologist discussed the use of radiation and chemotherapy as treatments for this cancer and explained that each of these therapies kills actively dividing normal and cancer cells, causing debilitating side effects. Ralph decided to carefully review his options and went for a second opinion to a cancer clinic at a major teaching hospital. There he learned that researchers in a synthetic biology program were testing the use of genetically modified E. coli that selectively invade and kill cancer cells, with no effects on normal cells. Ralph decided to participate in this trial, and at an appointment to learn about the details, he was informed that he would be part of a Phase III trial, comparing the effectsof the modified bacterial cells against conventional chemotherapy. As part of the trial, he would be randomly assigned to receive one or the other treatment. He was disappointed to learn this, because he assumed that he would receive the bacterial therapy.
What are Ralph's options at this point?
Case summary:
A 57-year-old man, Ralph, has colon cancer. Ralph came to know that chemotherapy and radiation treatments for the cancer are responsible for killing the cancerous cells along with the normal dividing cell and cause side effects. His oncologist advised him to go for synthetic biology program, in which the researchers use the genetically modified organism for the treatment of cancer patients.
Characters in the case:
A 57-year-old-man, Ralph.
Adequate information:
Ralph has colon cancer and decided to go for the synthetic biology program for the treatment of cancer. Researchers of this program use genetically modified Escherichia coli that selectively kill the cancer cells. He would be a part of a trial for this program and would receive the random treatment of bacterial therapy.
To determine:
Ralph’s options for cancer treatment after knowing that he would be getting random treatments for bacterial therapy.
Explanation of Solution
Given information:
Ralph is selected for the phase III trial, in which random treatments would be given for the treatment of cancer, which may be the modified bacterial therapy or the other therapies.
Cancer is a life-threatening disease, in which normal cells start dividing abnormally. These cells have the potential to invade other parts of the body. It results in the formation of the tumor and the cells inside the tumor grow in an unregulated manner. Cancer arises when normal cells lose the ability of contact inhibition and cells lack the programmed cell death mechanism.
All the cancerous cells acquire the property of metastasis. Colon cancer refers to the abnormal growth of the cells of the colon located at the lower end of the digestive tract. For the treatment of cancers, several chemotherapy treatments and radiations therapy have been used. These therapies have proved beneficial in many cases but they have a variety of side effects on the body and also kill normal cells along with the cancerous cells.
Advancement in the synthetic biology techniques led to the use of synthetic biology and application of synthetic genome for the treatment of various diseases such as cancer. Synthetic biology programmes result in the formation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that kill the selective cells responsible for the disease. These treatments have been proved very successful in many cases and have lesser side effects on the body as compared to the conventional chemotherapy and radiation treatments.
In this case, Ralph was disappointed because he was not able to get all the required treatments for the effective cure of his disease. Ralph was assuming that he would get the bacterial therapy. He should think that by knowing the synthetic biology programme for the cancer treatment, he came to know about the more options for the treatments apart from the conventional treatments and can opt such options when needed.
Thus, it can be concluded that Ralph would know more options for the cancer treatments beside the chemotherapy. He could have knowledge of the specific type of therapies having lesser side effects by joining the synthetic biology programme.
Want to see more full solutions like this?
Chapter 19 Solutions
Modified Mastering Genetics with Pearson eText -- Standalone Access Card -- for Essentials of Genetics (9th Edition)
- Who Owns Your Genome? John Moore, an engineer working on the Alaska oil pipeline, was diagnosed in the mid-1970s with a rare and fatal form of cancer known as hairy cell leukemia. This disease causes overproduction of one type of white blood cell known as a T lymphocyte. Moore went to the UCLA Medical Center for treatment and was examined by Dr. David Golde, who recommended that Moores spleen be removed in an attempt to slow down or stop the cancer. For the next 8 years, John Moore returned to UCLA for checkups. Unknown to Moore, Dr. Golde and his research assistant applied for and received a patent on a cell line and products of that cell line derived from Moores spleen. The cell line, named Mo, produced a protein that stimulates the growth of two types of blood cells that are important in identifying and killing cancer cells. Arrangements were made with Genetics Institute, a small start-up company, and then Sandoz Pharmaceuticals, to develop the cell line and produce the growth-stimulating protein. Moore found out about the cell line and its related patents and filed suit to claim ownership of his cells and asked for a share of the profits derived from the sale of the cells or products from the cells. Eventually, the case went through three courts, and in July 1990n years after the case beganthe California Supreme Court ruled that patients such as John Moore do not have property rights over any cells or tissues removed from their bodies that are used later to develop drugs or other commercial products. This case was the first in the nation to establish a legal precedent for the commercial development and use of human tissue. The National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 prevents the sale of human organs. Current laws allow the sale of human tissues and cells but do not define ownership interests of donors. Questions originally raised in the Moore case remain largely unresolved in laws and public policy. These questions are being raised in many other cases as well. Who owns fetal and adult stem-cell lines established from donors, and who has ownership of and a commercial interest in diagnostic tests developed through cell and tissue donations by affected individuals? Who benefits from new genetic technologies based on molecules, cells, or tissues contributed by patients? Are these financial, medical, and ethical benefits being distributed fairly? What can be done to ensure that risks and benefits are distributed in an equitable manner? Gaps between technology, laws, and public policy developed with the advent of recombinant DNA technology in the 1970s, and in the intervening decades, those gaps have not been closed. These controversies are likely to continue as new developments in technology continue to outpace social consensus about their use. Should the physicians at UCLA have told Mr. Moore that his cells and its products were being commercially developed?arrow_forwardWho Owns Your Genome? John Moore, an engineer working on the Alaska oil pipeline, was diagnosed in the mid-1970s with a rare and fatal form of cancer known as hairy cell leukemia. This disease causes overproduction of one type of white blood cell known as a T lymphocyte. Moore went to the UCLA Medical Center for treatment and was examined by Dr. David Golde, who recommended that Moores spleen be removed in an attempt to slow down or stop the cancer. For the next 8 years, John Moore returned to UCLA for checkups. Unknown to Moore, Dr. Golde and his research assistant applied for and received a patent on a cell line and products of that cell line derived from Moores spleen. The cell line, named Mo, produced a protein that stimulates the growth of two types of blood cells that are important in identifying and killing cancer cells. Arrangements were made with Genetics Institute, a small start-up company, and then Sandoz Pharmaceuticals, to develop the cell line and produce the growth-stimulating protein. Moore found out about the cell line and its related patents and filed suit to claim ownership of his cells and asked for a share of the profits derived from the sale of the cells or products from the cells. Eventually, the case went through three courts, and in July 1990n years after the case beganthe California Supreme Court ruled that patients such as John Moore do not have property rights over any cells or tissues removed from their bodies that are used later to develop drugs or other commercial products. This case was the first in the nation to establish a legal precedent for the commercial development and use of human tissue. The National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 prevents the sale of human organs. Current laws allow the sale of human tissues and cells but do not define ownership interests of donors. Questions originally raised in the Moore case remain largely unresolved in laws and public policy. These questions are being raised in many other cases as well. Who owns fetal and adult stem-cell lines established from donors, and who has ownership of and a commercial interest in diagnostic tests developed through cell and tissue donations by affected individuals? Who benefits from new genetic technologies based on molecules, cells, or tissues contributed by patients? Are these financial, medical, and ethical benefits being distributed fairly? What can be done to ensure that risks and benefits are distributed in an equitable manner? Gaps between technology, laws, and public policy developed with the advent of recombinant DNA technology in the 1970s, and in the intervening decades, those gaps have not been closed. These controversies are likely to continue as new developments in technology continue to outpace social consensus about their use. Do you think that donors or patients who provide cells and/or tissues should retain ownership of their body parts or should share in any financial benefits that might derive from their use in research or commercial applications?arrow_forwardA researcher wants to study cancer cells from a patient with breast cancer. Is cloning the cancer cells an option?arrow_forward
- 1. Germline genetic editing is treated with great caution by scientists, what are the potential risks of germline genetic editing and if one day, germline gene editing were to become legal, what criteria do you think will have to be met first?arrow_forwardWhy is it important to model cancer through the generation of induced pluripotent stem cells ? Explain in detail the main findings. Please sort as a list.arrow_forwardDiscuss Concepts A forensic scientist obtained a small DNA sample from a crime scene. In order to examine the sample, he increased its quantity by cycling the sample through the polymerase chain reaction. He estimated that there were 50,000 copies of the DNA in his original sample. Derive a simple formula and calculate the number of copies he will have after15 cycles of the PCR.arrow_forward
- Briefly discuss the process of gene therapy, including some of its technical challenges.arrow_forwardThe search for the BRCA1 breast cancer gene discussed in this chapter was widely publicized in the media (for example, Newsweek, December 6, 1993). Describe the steps taken by Mary-Claire King and her colleagues to clone this gene. How long did this process take?arrow_forwardMRNA- based therapeutics The following questions: Which research group has initially developed the technology? What was the purpose behind the invention of the technology? What type of questions could be answered with the technology? What are the applications of the technology? Are there any clinical trials associated with the method? What is the mechanism of action for the technology?arrow_forward
- Question:- Changes affecting tumor suppressors generally require _____ alleles to be affected in order to trigger transformation. one five or more two zeroarrow_forwardQuestion -The FDA has authorized the use of direct-to-consumer testing for three mutations in BRCA genes that elevate cancer risk, but cautions that a negative result does not rule out increased cancer risk. How can this be true? A. It is impossible to trust companies that are selling genetic tests. B. They have a conflict of interest, and so the tests should be used for entertainment value only C. These tests are not highly accurate, and false negatives are possible. Individuals with a family history should have a negative result confirmed with a different test to be sure they are truly at low risk of developing cancer There are more ways to get cancer than a mutation in the BRCA gene. D. The test only detects three out of more than 1,000 known BRCA mutations. This means a negative result does not rule out the possibility that an individual carries other BRCA mutations that increase cancer risk..arrow_forwardWhy is it important to model cancer through the generation of induced pluripotent stem cells ? Please explain in detailsarrow_forward
Human Heredity: Principles and Issues (MindTap Co...BiologyISBN:9781305251052Author:Michael CummingsPublisher:Cengage Learning
Biology: The Dynamic Science (MindTap Course List)BiologyISBN:9781305389892Author:Peter J. Russell, Paul E. Hertz, Beverly McMillanPublisher:Cengage Learning
Biology 2eBiologyISBN:9781947172517Author:Matthew Douglas, Jung Choi, Mary Ann ClarkPublisher:OpenStax
Biology (MindTap Course List)BiologyISBN:9781337392938Author:Eldra Solomon, Charles Martin, Diana W. Martin, Linda R. BergPublisher:Cengage Learning