• Lumisal@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    4 days ago

    I imagine this will be similar to chemotherapy.

    As in, it technically affects all your cells, it just happens to affect cancer cells a lot more. In this case, because they try to absorb extra sugars in many cases.

    • gndagreborn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      4 days ago

      Cancer cells often times lose their ability to perform oxidative phosphorylation. This means they can only rely on glycolysis as a sole source of ATP… This makes them EXCESSIVELY glucose hungry.

      It’s called the warburg effect. I’d have to read up on it and brush up on biochem, but that’s the basic principle.

      Essentially, cancer should soak up all the harmful sugar before it hits normal cells. This makes it even safer in theory than traditional chemo like methotrexate and such

      • Lumisal@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 days ago

        Yup, platinum chemo exists already too.

        Still makes one feel really nauseated by the second time

      • sga013@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 days ago

        one of my guesses would be that platinum catalysis is expensive as usual, but recovery of the catalyst from living being would be much worse than equivalent lab seetup, so the cost would not justify.

        • j5906@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          I mean its still in use anyways, so might aswell choose the most direct and selective method if that is via glycocojugates.

      • rain_enjoyer@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        because platinum sucks, and if you want to get real selective, you can tie together antibody and something like diphtheria toxin, but it’s not chemistry anymore, that’s firmly in biology ballpark

    • Nikls94@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 days ago

      Because they try to absorb extra sugars in many cases.

      I have absolutely no medical knowledge besides a first aid course. Does that mean that, by not eating any sugars, I could starve cancer cells? So like during keto (I did that years ago before the boom) I actually could have starved a lot of cancer cells?

      • rain_enjoyer@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        no because your liver makes sugars anyway. however there’s a more limited, more targeted way to deplete blood of select aminoacids that some cancers can’t make (asparaginase can be used this way)

        it’s one of these things that sound good and doesn’t work. many such cases

      • Lumisal@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        Yes, certain cancer therapy benefits from a zero sugar, low but high quality carb diet. You’ll slow the cancer a lot, and can help prevent it from coming back like that. You’ll still need something to kill it though, because your body still produces and needs sugars.

        And some are unaffected because they’re part of something that can already make or requires sugars, like brain or liver cancers.