Simple, cheap and effective drug against cancer discovered

[Cymric]

Now here is an interesting story relating to cancer. Apparently, a ridiculously simple chemical, dichloroacetate, has been shown to be very effective in killing a vast number of different types of cancer. According to the article, it reactivates the mitochondria of cancer cells. In normal cells, these little tykes provide the energy, but cancer cell switch them off because they require more energy than the mitochondria can supply. This trait is shared by all cancerous cells, explaining the chemical's broad effectiveness. The intruiging detail is that active mitochondria also control the process whereby cells terminate themselves. In other words, by switching them off the cancer cells became so hard to kill, and turning them on renders the cancer 'mortal' again: it shrinks and disappears...

I'm most curious to see how this one pans out.

[Karlos]

Which isomer is it? 1,1 or 1,3?

[Cymric]

The NewScientist article doesn't say---I guess that means looking up the original article.

[bloodline]

Odd that the mitochondria have control over cell termination? One would have though activating dormant mitochondria would have provided an extra boost in cell growth/devision due to extra energy provided.

Begs the question though... how do the cancer cells work without mitochondria? I was under the impression all Oxygen respiration was due to these little symbiots?

[Karlos]

An even stranger note, there was an article recently describing the action of capsaicin on tumour cells, killing them by the exact opposite behaviour, i.e. shutting down their mitochodria :-?

[bloodline]

Karlos wrote:
An even stranger note, there was an article recently describing the action of capsaicin on tumour cells, killing them by the exact opposite behaviour, i.e. shutting down their mitochodria :-?

Hmmm... I think there are some really subtle interaction going on which we are not aware of...

On a more distressing note (for me anyway)... capsaicin is bad for you!?!?! :-(

[JaXanim]

Karlos wrote:
Which isomer is it? 1,1 or 1,3?

There's no such thing as 1,3-chloroacetate. The DCA radical contains only two carbon atoms, one of which is in the carbonyl group. In fact there's no possibility of structural isomerism with dichloroacate, both chlorines being attached to the only available carbon atom.
Cheers, JaX

[Karlos]

:oops:

I actually read it as dichloroacetone, of which there are two possible forms:

ClCH2-(C=O)-CH2Cl or CH3-(C=0)-CHCl2

Incidentally, are you sure it's a radical? I would have thought that dichloroacetate is the anion of the dissociated form of dichloroacetic acid?

(Having just 2 carbon atoms, you could have Chloroacetyl chloride, but as with all acid chlorides that sure as hell doesn't sound very good for you ;-))

[JaXanim]

- - - -
Incidentally, are you sure it's a radical?

I don't mean 'radical' in the sense you understand. The term 'dichloroacetate' is an incomplete description of either a salt (eg. sodium dichloroacetate) or an ester (eg. isopropyl dichloroacetate). The DCA referred to in the article is I believe the sodium or potassium salt. As you correctly state, 'DCA' is actually the anion of dichloroacetic acid. However, when organic chemists discuss bits and pieces of molecules, rather than the entire molecules, they tend to call them 'radicals'.
Cheers, JaX

[Karlos]

Yes, I used to be one ;-)

A synthetic organic chemist, I mean, not a radical :lol:

-edit-

Probably the reason I read it as "dichloroacetone" is simply because when scan reading it I automatically rejected "dichloroacetate" as a discrete chemical compound. First letter/last letter reading thing, no doubt.

[JaXanim]

Karlos wrote:
Probably the reason I read it as "dichloroacetone" is simply because when scan reading it I automatically rejected "dichloroacetate" as a discrete chemical compound.

Well I'm glad you're not treating me! :-o
JaX

[Karlos]

@Jax

No, I think you'd want a medical doctor, really :-D

-edit-

Thinking about it, it's pretty sloppy for a scientific publication to call a specific chemical compound "chloroacetate". What-chloroacetate? There's an infinite number of esters, amides, anydrides etc. that could contain a chloroacetate functional group.

Tsk...

[JaXanim]

Karlos wrote:
Thinking about it, it's pretty sloppy for a scientific publication to call a specific chemical compound "chloroacetate". What-chloroacetate? There's an infinite number of...

Not really. DCA is a recognised drug used in the treatment of mitochondrial diseases. Anyone who needs to know will already know exactly what they're referring to. It's the sodium salt I believe, but I think almost any water soluble salt would do.
JaX

[Karlos]

Fair enough from a usage perspective, but from a strict chemical perspective there is simply no such compound as "dichloroacetate"; it can't exist on its own to be bottled up and shipped any more than "chloride" or "sulphate" can.

Anyway, that's by the by and I'm clearly being quite anal about it. The important thing is what it is capable of. It's quite ironic when you consider the sheer effort invested in cancer research that answers may lie in some of the simpler substances we've employed for ages for other purposes.

It seems strange that this and capsaicin both appear (as far as the detail in the given reports go) to kill cancer cells by having the opposite effects on their mitochondria.

[JaXanim]

Karlos wrote:
- - -
It's quite ironic when you consider the sheer effort invested in cancer research that answers may lie in some of the simpler substances we've employed for ages for other purposes.

It's all about money. Nobody will make any money if DCA proves to be the silver bullet. I wish these DCA investigators every success, the world deserves something free for a change.
JaX