2011-05-16, 04:01 PM
The original paper (I've read it) is pretty good science (else it won't be in Cell!), but I feel that the media is partly to blame for the excessive hype... the authors aren't very right either in making so much publicity.
I'll clarify this: The mitochondria's primary role is in metabolism and energy transduction [can't find the most accurate word off my head now], but it's role in apoptosis is crucial - without CytC and the subsequent apoptosome formation, the Caspase cascade is severely impared and you won't have regulated cell death. But obviously most of the time the mitochondria is transducing energy and not killing the original cell!
The original paper and subsequent studies hold up against water [expression problems sorry, that's what happens when you study for hours at one go], and clinical trials are very expensive so we don't necessarily expect peer-reviews for clinical trials. But peer-reviews for in vitro experiments and related stuff, yes.
Moon... DCA is hardly new... I feel that what's not acceptable is the number of articles that write blindly on DCA for cancer treatment without doing sufficient homework. Also, the primary reason why pharmas won't work on this because they can't patent it. Sure you can patent a formulation, but by then it's way too late because even the formulation must go through FDA and the whole journey - by then it's long gone.
The page on Wikipedia has been updated today. Go take a look. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichloroacetic_acid
Also, resistance of the neoplastic tissues to DCA is also possible.
Hadriel
I'll clarify this: The mitochondria's primary role is in metabolism and energy transduction [can't find the most accurate word off my head now], but it's role in apoptosis is crucial - without CytC and the subsequent apoptosome formation, the Caspase cascade is severely impared and you won't have regulated cell death. But obviously most of the time the mitochondria is transducing energy and not killing the original cell!
The original paper and subsequent studies hold up against water [expression problems sorry, that's what happens when you study for hours at one go], and clinical trials are very expensive so we don't necessarily expect peer-reviews for clinical trials. But peer-reviews for in vitro experiments and related stuff, yes.
Moon... DCA is hardly new... I feel that what's not acceptable is the number of articles that write blindly on DCA for cancer treatment without doing sufficient homework. Also, the primary reason why pharmas won't work on this because they can't patent it. Sure you can patent a formulation, but by then it's way too late because even the formulation must go through FDA and the whole journey - by then it's long gone.
The page on Wikipedia has been updated today. Go take a look. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichloroacetic_acid
Also, resistance of the neoplastic tissues to DCA is also possible.
Hadriel