by Judy Peres, Chicago Tribune
Mammograms showing a normal breast (left) and a breast with cancer (right). Credit: Public Domain
Imagine that you are a molecular biologist who has spent the last 20 years in your lab, doggedly trying to figure out how chemicals in the environment cause human cells to become cancerous. One day a benefactor asks you what it would take to make real progress toward that goal. You say, "Maybe about $5 million over a three-year period." And your benefactor says, "Done!"
That's pretty much the way it happened for David Sherr, professor of environmental health at Boston University and director of the school's Superfund Research Program. His fairy godmother was a little-known local group called Art beCAUSE Breast Cancer Foundation, which last fall announced a $5 million grant to Sherr and four other researchers to identify the environmental causes of breast cancer and methods of preventing the disease.
Ellie Anbinder, founder and executive director of the foundation, said money for that kind of research has to come from the private sector because "the vast majority of government research monies go to treatment and cure." But she believes chemicals in the environment play a significant, if not dominant, role in breast and other cancers. Identifying them and putting pressure on policymakers to minimize exposure to them could be the first step in preventing the disease.
Epidemiologists have been trying for decades to demonstrate links between cancer and the environment. In 2011 the Institute of Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, convened a blue-ribbon panel that found no solid evidence, with the "possible" exception of a few workplace chemicals such as benzene.
"It's a radioactive topic," said an official of the National Cancer Institute who asked not to be identified. "Many people feel strongly that chemicals in the environment are causing breast cancer. But we couldn't find any patterns."
Art beCAUSE (so named because the co-founder owned an art gallery, and one of the first projects saw artists donating a percentage of sales to research) has only $350,000 of the promised $5 million. "We'll give it to them as we raise it," said board chairman Bill Diercks.
Sherr said the first installment is enough for each of the five labs to hire a dedicated researcher for a year. "It's a start," he said. "The critical element was to get everyone working together, which gives you a synergistic effect. We can share technology and resources and refine our ideas."
Sherr is working on a protein known as the aryl hydrocarbon receptor, which binds to environmental carcinogens and begins the aberrant signaling that causes cells to divide out of control. Two others members of the consortium - Dr. David Seldin, chief of hematology/oncology at Boston University, and Gail Sonenshein, professor of biochemistry at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston - also are cell-signal researchers. The remaining members of the consortium are Charlotte Kuperwasser, an expert on the biology of cancer stem cells at Tufts, and Stefano Monti, a computational biologist at B.U.
Monti's project is to develop a high-tech genomic platform that can screen large numbers of chemicals quickly and economically for their ability to affect cancer-related signaling pathways in human cells. The consortium believes high-throughput screening may be the only practical way to find out whether the more than 80,000 untested chemicals on the market today cause cancer.
The gold-standard test of carcinogenicity, the two-year rodent bioassay, uses 800 animals and costs $2 million to $4 million per compound. No wonder only about 1,500 chemicals have been tested so far. But most epidemiological studies have failed to identify environmental culprits, which Sherr says is not surprising.
"The critical exposures that result in breast cancer may have happened 10 or 20 years before diagnosis ..., in utero, or even a generation or two generations ago," Sherr said. "There is no realistic way for an epidemiologist to quantify exposure to any one chemical over that time frame, let alone the tens of thousands of chemicals and combinations thereof. It's simply impossible with current technologies."
Most studies also fail to take account of genetic predisposition, or gene-environment interactions. "Let's assume that 1,000 chemicals of the 80,000 in the environment are carcinogens," Sherr said, "but each for a small subset of women with a particular genetic makeup. The overall effect of all those chemicals would be significant. But demonstrating that any one is a carcinogen by epidemiology would be a daunting if not impossible task."
The upshot is that even though environmental chemicals are probably at least partly responsible for some portion of breast cancer cases, proof is elusive.
"We assume that all these chemicals are innocent until proven guilty," Sherr said, "and I think it's too dangerous to do that. Do you want to grant those chemicals constitutional rights and bet your life ... ? Or do you want to do the science and find out which suspects we really need to look more closely at?"
The National Institutes of Health are doing some of that science. But Diercks said the institutes are "pretty careful about which projects they're funding. They want to fund things with more proven science and quicker returns."
Both funders and grantees are aware of the symbiosis of their efforts. Raising money helps the scientists do their work. At the same time, the scientific work helps the funders raise more money.
"If we can generate some preliminary results," Monti said, "it will increase visibility and make it more likely they will succeed" in raising the rest of the $5 million.
Of course, even $5 million isn't likely to prevent breast cancer. "But in the research funding world," Diercks said, "there's a very definite leveraging effect of about 10 to 1. Once they publish results that get the attention of the NIH, the hope is that our $5 million will get them $50 million."
Kuperwasser is just thankful for the chance to do the science. "This work would never be funded by traditional funding mechanisms," she said, "because it's too outside the box. ... You can't propose large-scale fishing projects, because you can't predict the outcome before you do the work. But that's how important discoveries are made. You don't go out saying, 'I know there's going to be America across the water.' (Art beCAUSE) said, 'We're going to provide you the boat and money to explore what's out there.'
"It may or may not be enough" to get to the next level of funding, she said. "But we'll get as far as we can and report our findings. As explorers, you don't wait until you have enough money to complete the voyage. You put the boat in the water and start paddling."
Explore further: Researchers discover new way to determine cancer risk of chemicals
©2015 Chicago Tribune
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC
Medical Xpress on facebook
Related Stories
Researchers discover new way to determine cancer risk of chemicals
A new study has shown that it is possible to predict long-term cancer risk from a chemical exposure by measuring the short-term effects of that same exposure. The findings, which currently appear in the journal PLOS ONE, will m ...
Study lists dangerous chemicals linked to breast cancer
Certain chemicals that are common in everyday life have been shown to cause breast cancer in lab rats and are likely to do the same in women, US researchers said Monday.
Fifteen new breast cancer genetic risk 'hot-spots' revealed
Scientists have discovered another 15 genetic 'hot-spots' that can increase a woman's risk of developing breast cancer, according to research published today in Nature Genetics.
BPA stimulates growth of breast cancer cells, diminishes effect of treatment
Bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical commonly used in plastics, appears to increase the proliferation of breast cancer cells, according to Duke Medicine researchers presenting at an annual meeting of endocrine scientists.
Improve chemical testing on mammary glands to reduce risk of breast cancer
A new commentary by Center for Occupational and Environmental Health (COEH) researchers, published in Reproductive Toxicology, covers the emerging evidence that chemical exposure may contribute to breast ...
Recommended for you
Investigating new approaches to treat metastatic kidney cancer
Kidney cancer is the eighth most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States, with a five-year survival rate of 72.4 percent. At first glance, these survival rates compare advantageously to other seemingly ...
Pensioners seven times more likely to get deadly skin cancer than 40 years ago
People over 65 are around seven times more likely to develop malignant melanoma compared to 40 years ago, according to new figures released by Cancer Research UK today.
Study: $1 test outperforms PSA screening for prostate cancer
A test that costs less than a $1 and yields results in minutes has been shown in newly published studies to be more sensitive and more exact than the current standard test for early-stage prostate cancer.
Researchers combine common genetic variants to improve breast cancer
Recent large-scale genomic analyses have uncovered dozens of common genetic variants that are associated with breast cancer. Each variant, however, contributes only a tiny amount to a person's overall risk ...
HPV's link to head, neck cancer
Tobacco and alcohol use may be the most common cause of head and neck cancers, but a new culprit has come on the scene in recent years.
Cancer genes deactivated in deadly brain cancer
Northwestern Medicine scientists have identified a small RNA molecule called miR-182 that can suppress cancer-causing genes in mice with glioblastoma mulitforme (GBM), a deadly and incurable type of brain ...
User comments
Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more
Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.
by Judy Peres, Chicago Tribune
Mammograms showing a normal breast (left) and a breast with cancer (right). Credit: Public Domain
Imagine that you are a molecular biologist who has spent the last 20 years in your lab, doggedly trying to figure out how chemicals in the environment cause human cells to become cancerous. One day a benefactor asks you what it would take to make real progress toward that goal. You say, "Maybe about $5 million over a three-year period." And your benefactor says, "Done!"
That's pretty much the way it happened for David Sherr, professor of environmental health at Boston University and director of the school's Superfund Research Program. His fairy godmother was a little-known local group called Art beCAUSE Breast Cancer Foundation, which last fall announced a $5 million grant to Sherr and four other researchers to identify the environmental causes of breast cancer and methods of preventing the disease.
Ellie Anbinder, founder and executive director of the foundation, said money for that kind of research has to come from the private sector because "the vast majority of government research monies go to treatment and cure." But she believes chemicals in the environment play a significant, if not dominant, role in breast and other cancers. Identifying them and putting pressure on policymakers to minimize exposure to them could be the first step in preventing the disease.
Epidemiologists have been trying for decades to demonstrate links between cancer and the environment. In 2011 the Institute of Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, convened a blue-ribbon panel that found no solid evidence, with the "possible" exception of a few workplace chemicals such as benzene.
"It's a radioactive topic," said an official of the National Cancer Institute who asked not to be identified. "Many people feel strongly that chemicals in the environment are causing breast cancer. But we couldn't find any patterns."
Art beCAUSE (so named because the co-founder owned an art gallery, and one of the first projects saw artists donating a percentage of sales to research) has only $350,000 of the promised $5 million. "We'll give it to them as we raise it," said board chairman Bill Diercks.
Sherr said the first installment is enough for each of the five labs to hire a dedicated researcher for a year. "It's a start," he said. "The critical element was to get everyone working together, which gives you a synergistic effect. We can share technology and resources and refine our ideas."
Sherr is working on a protein known as the aryl hydrocarbon receptor, which binds to environmental carcinogens and begins the aberrant signaling that causes cells to divide out of control. Two others members of the consortium - Dr. David Seldin, chief of hematology/oncology at Boston University, and Gail Sonenshein, professor of biochemistry at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston - also are cell-signal researchers. The remaining members of the consortium are Charlotte Kuperwasser, an expert on the biology of cancer stem cells at Tufts, and Stefano Monti, a computational biologist at B.U.
Monti's project is to develop a high-tech genomic platform that can screen large numbers of chemicals quickly and economically for their ability to affect cancer-related signaling pathways in human cells. The consortium believes high-throughput screening may be the only practical way to find out whether the more than 80,000 untested chemicals on the market today cause cancer.
The gold-standard test of carcinogenicity, the two-year rodent bioassay, uses 800 animals and costs $2 million to $4 million per compound. No wonder only about 1,500 chemicals have been tested so far. But most epidemiological studies have failed to identify environmental culprits, which Sherr says is not surprising.
"The critical exposures that result in breast cancer may have happened 10 or 20 years before diagnosis ..., in utero, or even a generation or two generations ago," Sherr said. "There is no realistic way for an epidemiologist to quantify exposure to any one chemical over that time frame, let alone the tens of thousands of chemicals and combinations thereof. It's simply impossible with current technologies."
Most studies also fail to take account of genetic predisposition, or gene-environment interactions. "Let's assume that 1,000 chemicals of the 80,000 in the environment are carcinogens," Sherr said, "but each for a small subset of women with a particular genetic makeup. The overall effect of all those chemicals would be significant. But demonstrating that any one is a carcinogen by epidemiology would be a daunting if not impossible task."
The upshot is that even though environmental chemicals are probably at least partly responsible for some portion of breast cancer cases, proof is elusive.
"We assume that all these chemicals are innocent until proven guilty," Sherr said, "and I think it's too dangerous to do that. Do you want to grant those chemicals constitutional rights and bet your life ... ? Or do you want to do the science and find out which suspects we really need to look more closely at?"
The National Institutes of Health are doing some of that science. But Diercks said the institutes are "pretty careful about which projects they're funding. They want to fund things with more proven science and quicker returns."
Both funders and grantees are aware of the symbiosis of their efforts. Raising money helps the scientists do their work. At the same time, the scientific work helps the funders raise more money.
"If we can generate some preliminary results," Monti said, "it will increase visibility and make it more likely they will succeed" in raising the rest of the $5 million.
Of course, even $5 million isn't likely to prevent breast cancer. "But in the research funding world," Diercks said, "there's a very definite leveraging effect of about 10 to 1. Once they publish results that get the attention of the NIH, the hope is that our $5 million will get them $50 million."
Kuperwasser is just thankful for the chance to do the science. "This work would never be funded by traditional funding mechanisms," she said, "because it's too outside the box. ... You can't propose large-scale fishing projects, because you can't predict the outcome before you do the work. But that's how important discoveries are made. You don't go out saying, 'I know there's going to be America across the water.' (Art beCAUSE) said, 'We're going to provide you the boat and money to explore what's out there.'
"It may or may not be enough" to get to the next level of funding, she said. "But we'll get as far as we can and report our findings. As explorers, you don't wait until you have enough money to complete the voyage. You put the boat in the water and start paddling."
Explore further: Researchers discover new way to determine cancer risk of chemicals
©2015 Chicago Tribune
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC
Medical Xpress on facebook
Related Stories
Researchers discover new way to determine cancer risk of chemicals
A new study has shown that it is possible to predict long-term cancer risk from a chemical exposure by measuring the short-term effects of that same exposure. The findings, which currently appear in the journal PLOS ONE, will m ...
Study lists dangerous chemicals linked to breast cancer
Certain chemicals that are common in everyday life have been shown to cause breast cancer in lab rats and are likely to do the same in women, US researchers said Monday.
Fifteen new breast cancer genetic risk 'hot-spots' revealed
Scientists have discovered another 15 genetic 'hot-spots' that can increase a woman's risk of developing breast cancer, according to research published today in Nature Genetics.
BPA stimulates growth of breast cancer cells, diminishes effect of treatment
Bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical commonly used in plastics, appears to increase the proliferation of breast cancer cells, according to Duke Medicine researchers presenting at an annual meeting of endocrine scientists.
Improve chemical testing on mammary glands to reduce risk of breast cancer
A new commentary by Center for Occupational and Environmental Health (COEH) researchers, published in Reproductive Toxicology, covers the emerging evidence that chemical exposure may contribute to breast ...
Recommended for you
Investigating new approaches to treat metastatic kidney cancer
Kidney cancer is the eighth most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States, with a five-year survival rate of 72.4 percent. At first glance, these survival rates compare advantageously to other seemingly ...
Pensioners seven times more likely to get deadly skin cancer than 40 years ago
People over 65 are around seven times more likely to develop malignant melanoma compared to 40 years ago, according to new figures released by Cancer Research UK today.
Study: $1 test outperforms PSA screening for prostate cancer
A test that costs less than a $1 and yields results in minutes has been shown in newly published studies to be more sensitive and more exact than the current standard test for early-stage prostate cancer.
Researchers combine common genetic variants to improve breast cancer
Recent large-scale genomic analyses have uncovered dozens of common genetic variants that are associated with breast cancer. Each variant, however, contributes only a tiny amount to a person's overall risk ...
HPV's link to head, neck cancer
Tobacco and alcohol use may be the most common cause of head and neck cancers, but a new culprit has come on the scene in recent years.
Cancer genes deactivated in deadly brain cancer
Northwestern Medicine scientists have identified a small RNA molecule called miR-182 that can suppress cancer-causing genes in mice with glioblastoma mulitforme (GBM), a deadly and incurable type of brain ...
User comments
Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more
Click here
to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.
0 comments:
Post a Comment