Once you have these notes in your heads, you can sing a million different tunes by mixing them up.
When you know the notes to sing, You can sing most anything. ~Do-Re-Mi (The Sound of Music)
When you know the concept and principle for your life, your work, your duty,your study etc; you can virtually do and excel in every expect of your life, work, duty, study etc.
But the point is, can you differentiate the detail from the concept and principal. Think about it.
It is well known that clinical trial is an extremely expensive business.
Researchers involved in drug discovery are working hard each day to predict and extrapolate their preclinical trial data in order to ensure the compound they discovered to survive in clinical trials.
However, there are some interesting points that I read in ScienceDaily.com recently which could be helpful in explaining some failures in clinical trials.
For cancer cells, genetics alone is poor indicator for drug response
"Genetics are permanently heritable, while these protein levels are temporarily heritable," says Sorger. "But this temporary inheritance can make all the difference in the world when it comes to the effectiveness of certain medications."
"We knew that there were clearly factors at work here that were not genetic," says Spencer. "Genetic resistance would remain uniform in subsequent generations. But the factors at work here were clearly more dynamic."
"For decades biologists have had this notion that cells produce proteins in orderly, uniform ways, like an assembly line, but they don't," says Sorger. "Rather, cells produce proteins in fits and starts, and the timing and degree varies from one cell to the next—even cells that are identical in every way. This randomness is something that we're just beginning to appreciate."
Harvard Medical School (2009, April 14). For Cancer Cells, Genetics Alone Is Poor Indicator For Drug Response. ScienceDaily. Retrieved May 4, 2009, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090413083417.htm
Just as no two humans are the same, a Purdue University scientist has shown treating mice more as individuals in laboratory testing cuts down on erroneous results and could significantly reduce the cost of drug development.
Mice have long been used as test subjects for treatments and drugs before those products are approved for human testing. But new research (done by Joseph Garner, a Purdue assistant professor of animal sciences, and professor Hanno Würbel of the Justus-Liebig University of Giessen in Germany) shows that the customary practice of standardizing mice by trying to limit environmental variation in laboratories actually increases the chance of getting an incorrect result.
"In lab animals, we have this bizarre idea that we can control everything that happens," Garner said. "But we would never be able to do that with humans, and we wouldn't want to. You want to know if a drug is going to work in all people, so you test it on a wide range of different people. We should do the same thing with mice."
Garner said human testing uses a broad range of subjects, giving scientists an idea of how a drug or treatment might affect different types of people. But scientists often use mice that are basically genetically identical and try to limit internal and external environmental factors such as stress, diet and age to eliminate variables affecting the outcome.
Purdue University (2009, March 31). Mice And Humans Should Have More In Common In Clinical Trials. ScienceDaily. Retrieved May 4, 2009, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090330142422.htm
The mouse is a stalwart stand-in for humans in medical research, thanks to genomes that are 85 percent identical. But identical genes may behave differently in mouse and man, a study by University of Michigan evolutionary biologists Ben-Yang Liao and Jianzhi Zhang reveals.
"Everyone assumes that deletion of the same gene in the mouse and in humans produces the same phenotype (an observable trait such as presence or absence of a particular disease). That's the basis of using the mouse to study human disease," said Zhang, an associate professor of ecology and evolutionary biology.
"Our results show that may not always be the case.""To our surprise, 22 percent of the 120 human essential genes are nonessential in the mouse," Zhang said. "I expected there would be some, but I never expected the percentage to be so high."
University of Michigan (2008, May 15). Mice Can Do Without Humans' Most Treasured Genes. ScienceDaily. Retrieved May 4, 2009, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080514124110.htm
Have you ever wonder is there any connection between the failure of a drug or compound in clinical trials with the price of a marketable drug?
Perhaps, this would trigger you to think about it......
When mouse testing creates a false positive, leading a researcher to believe a drug has worked, the drug could be sent to further animal testing and human clinical trials at a cost of millions of dollars. Drugs that fail in clinical trials cannot be marketed, and the money is wasted. To recoup those losses, drug companies must increase the costs of marketable drugs.
"Drugs aren't expensive because they're costly to make," Garner said. "They're expensive because the company has to recoup the costs of the other drugs that have failed in human clinical trials. Numbers are hard to estimate, but for every drug that reaches the marketplace, well over 100 have been abandoned at some point in their development."Purdue University (2009, March 31). Mice And Humans Should Have More In Common In Clinical Trials. ScienceDaily. Retrieved May 4, 2009, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090330142422.htm
CHICAGO (Reuters) - Scientists have created the first genetic blueprint of domestic cattle, saying on Thursday the map may lead to tastier beef, better milk and even new insights about human health.
The Hereford cow's is the first mapped livestock animal sequence, and the researchers think it will help explain how cattle evolved, why they ended up with a four-chambered stomach, and why they almost never get cancer.
"Having the genome sequence is now the window to understanding how these changes occurred," said Harris Lewin of the University of Illinois, who worked on the research published in two reports in the journal Science.
Regarding cancer, I am quite curious how this scientific finding helps to prevent or reduce cancer incidence in human.
One of my reasons would be, the marked difference between human nutrition and cattle nutrition. As we are aware of, too much of meat product, especially red meat is associated with higher cancer incidence. Furthermore, people who avoided meat are much less likely to develop cancer. But yet, contraindicate findings been reported over the time regarding this subject, and I personally think that the meat: vegetable consumption ratio could provide us some indications to these contraries.
Besides that, fiber content in food we consume very likely to help us to get rid of the carcinogens found in our food. Furthermore, it can prevent disruption in the sensitive balance of beneficial bacteria in our gut. This prevents the inflammation of our digestive walls and disturbance to the gut-associated immune system.
Having said that, besides genetics, the food, that is forage, taken by cattle is very likely to prevent them or reduce their incidence of getting cancer.
However, it is still too early to derived at any conclusion, and all the points I pointed out are just merely my personal opinions.
As I am a strong believer that a disease is an unique interaction between host, agent and environment.
Yesterday, during an interview with the press, one of the topic that I took quite a long time to clarify is regarding to cancer stem cells.
To lots of people, when they heard of stem cell and cancer, immediately they are thinking of the normal or good (I would put it) stem cell such as those from bone marrow that are used to alleviate some of the adverse effect faced by the cancer patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy.
They hardly can imagine, there is a group of stem cells that are evil or cancerous that are found in the cancer cell population itself.
So, what is cancer stem cell then?
The cancer stem cells, is a small subset of cancer cells, which constitute a reservoirof self-sustaining cells with the exclusive ability to self-renewand maintain the tumor. These cancer stem cells have the capacityto both divide and expand the cancer stem cell pool and to differentiateinto the heterogeneous nontumorigenic cancer cell types thatin most cases appear to constitute the bulk of the cancer cellswithin the tumor. Source: http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/full/66/19/9339
In order words, they are......
are cancer cells (found within tumors or hematological cancers) that possess characteristics associated with normal stem cells, specifically the ability to give rise to all cell types found in a particular cancer sample. These cells are therefore tumorigenic (tumor-forming), perhaps in contrast to other non-tumorigenic cancer cells. Source: Wikepedia
These cancer stem cells, currently, is believed as one of cause of cancer recurrent after anti-cancer therapy been stop when a cancer patient been certified as cured from cancer. This is mainly because these cancer stem cells still remain in the cancer patient as these cells are resistance to most conventional chemotherapies widely used to date.
That is why, on Sep 11th 2008, there is one striking heading published in The Economist
Viewing these phenomena, till late, very little is known about all these cancer stem cells and researches are on-going to understand them further and to discover novel therapy that specifically targeting these cells.
At this point, I am wondering, under tumor microenvironment, these cancer stem cells are existed. If we managed to revert these tumor microenvironment to normal microenviroenment where normal cells are living, can these cancer stem cells revert to normal stem cells? As currently, there is hypothesis indicating that cancer stem cells could be derived from normal stem cells that undergo cancerous mutation.
It has been about 5 years now since I get involved in breast cancer research.
One thing I truly thrill and excited about cancer research is that the more I learn about them, the less I truly understand them; in order words, the more questions I have about them.
Is this a threat? I don't think so, as I viewed this phenomenon as a opportunity to learn more about them; the more opportunity I have as target for novel discoveries in the future.
That is why, until now, I still have the impression of I still know nothing about cancer, particularly breast cancer......
Caramel, in fact the caramel that I am referring to is Caramel (2007), a Lebanese film directed by Nadine Labaki. It is a wonderful movie, is a movie of love, of how much a girl and women can scarify for their love ones.
In order to please a married man, his lover was willing to scarify her dignity; to ensure her husband doesn’t question her virginity, she opted for an cosmetic revirgination surgery, to ensure her mentally-ill sister was well take care of, she scarified her long-waited love, and of course, she became brave to try out something new that she was afraid of, all these, are what a girl and a women would do merely just to keep a relationship.
On the other hand, men often never truly appreciate all these and just merely let the lover suffered by letting her constantly waiting for him, been ignorant and let-go too soon and easily.
When I write until here, suddenly LEVONELLE wrote by Xialu Guo, which I posted on Thursday, April, 9, 2009; suddenly came to my mind......
LEVONELLE, Xiaolu Guo (2002)
If your man Lives at the end of a road Or a section of the railway terminal That is the most dangerous thing to have If the road is blocked Or the railway is derailed You will never be able to reach your love
~LEVONELLE, Xiaolu Guo (2002)
I have made such a mistake years ago, perhaps that is why I really touched while watching Caramel......