Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Significant_Sign t1_iu0crnu wrote

Well, I find it difficult to appreciate the novel use of 'dark matter' just for buzzy-ness, but it is quite a breakthrough. Takes advantage of the level of technology we already have, we just need to use it differently.

315

Komnos t1_iu0ezjt wrote

Any bets on how long until we have to start explaining to people that cancer isn't caused by literal dark matter?

165

EightEqualsEqualsDe t1_iu0kg3l wrote

It is kinda funny to imagine the same thing causing uncontrolled growth of the universe is the same thing responsible for causing uncontrolled growth in human cells

79

ajmcgill t1_iu0v39v wrote

You’re confusing dark matter with dark energy. Dark energy is what’s causing the universe’s accelerating explanation

31

Sagebrush_Slim t1_iu21fd5 wrote

Is that like this big dick energy and tiger blood I hear the whippersnappers talking about these days?

9

imadethisaccountso t1_iu4ps08 wrote

I am not a lawyer but i thought mass and energy were related somehow

1

imafraidofmuricans t1_iu4vn0w wrote

"Dark" in astronomy and physics just means "we don't know wtf this is but the math says there is something".

Dark energy to cover the expansion, dark matter to cover why galaxies are more massive than they "should " be.

1

_Blackstar t1_iu17uyk wrote

Other way around though. Dark matter is believed to be the binding agent of the universe; gas and dust falls into the dark matter pockets that have coalesced over the eons and that creates everything from stars to galactic filaments. It's dark energy that's pushing the universe and causing it to grow exponentially.

17

Faruhoinguh t1_iu249lc wrote

the growth is from dark energy, not dark matter.

3

Significant_Sign t1_iu0j0il wrote

Not long. It only needs to get picked up by the correct "independent minded" channel/paper/zine and the people who do their own research will be trying to "own" their relatives at Thanksgiving.

24

Angelexodus t1_iu0vm1t wrote

It’s already known to the state of California to cause cancer.

9

starserval t1_iu4oup2 wrote

It seems like the common denominator is California. Perhaps it may be California that causes cancer?

3

pinkfootthegoose t1_iu0rjz5 wrote

I was thinking the same thing. Here come the conspiracy nuts.

I wish that the people that label these things would think a bit more of the social impact of using terms like this. freaking morons.

3

[deleted] t1_iu0wi61 wrote

Too late, I'm already adding an extra layer to my tinfoil hat.

^(/s just to be sure because you never know)

3

TennisADHD t1_iu0lw6u wrote

I bet no time.

How do you know that’s not what’s causing cancer?

I won the bet!

2

thedm96 t1_iu184ob wrote

I mean we all know it's 5G causing cancer.

2

Otfd t1_iu0ng2l wrote

Just to be clear, dark matter is causing cancer correct?

​

/s

1

bonelessevil t1_iu148a6 wrote

Came here, because I thought somehow dark matter caused cancer

1

draculamilktoast t1_iu1yvc2 wrote

It's intentional. Make people so confused they'll have to actually read the manual for once.

1

Wildpeanut t1_iu215dj wrote

Admittedly that’s what I thought the article was trying to imply. Which is why jargon, or field specific terms should not be used liberally outside of their field of origin. This is especially true for medicine which has its own massive vocabulary and can be a complex and confusing field for laypeople. Why muddy the waters further?

1

soyarriba t1_iu22t6c wrote

I literally only clicked this bc of dark matter and immediately went it the comments to verify my suspicions lol.

1

admiralwarron t1_iu3eii9 wrote

I have an even better bet. How long until former celebs use their name to sell anti-darkmatter soaps and dark matter cleansing programs

1

Komnos t1_iu421md wrote

I'm sure Gwyneth Paltrow has something in the works. "Introducing organic, GMO-free Light Matter!"

2

Smellz_Of_Elderberry t1_iu4piew wrote

Omg cancer is caused by dark matter? The pieces are falling into place, it all makes sense now.

1

WiartonWilly t1_iu1ygm9 wrote

Why use a well known and well understood concept (epigenetics) when you can repurpose a completely different word from a very different branch of science? 🤔

15

Significant_Sign t1_iu2mgsh wrote

Yes! It's like they don't know we've been talking about epigenetics for more than 5 seconds and people are familiar with it. Even my mom has a passing familiarity and she is not a nerd of any persuasion. Except, they do of course know and this is grown adults still acting like they are adolescents trying to secure their in-group status with the cool kids. Boo to this buzzword marketing-speak becoming the norm in scientific circles.

Now if you'll excuse me, my back is aching.

4

Snufflepuffster t1_iu0s59g wrote

What they are saying is historically we have considered cancer to be caused by DNA corruption, but how the DNA is read is actually way more important. How DNA is read can be affected by your environment, so this is a big shift in how we consider the disease.

230

[deleted] t1_iu2mtj0 wrote

[removed]

68

TheShadowOfKaos t1_iu2q4pm wrote

Care I stare into a microwave while it's heating food yet?

11

NoPajamasNoService t1_iu2vfjl wrote

I would put my forehead against it while I waited for my food to cook while I was in college. Combination of being tired, hungry, and probably high was no Bueno apparently.

5

PloxtTY t1_iu31nq6 wrote

I always thought the radiation can’t escape the door

3

jam3s2001 t1_iu33l48 wrote

It can, but not enough to physically hurt you. But:

It's not the kind of radiation that causes cancer. I'm going to really simplify things here, but when we think about radiation in this context, there's 2 kinds - ionizing and non-ionizing. Anything that's got a longer wavelength than UV light is non-ionizing. This is pretty much all of the stuff we find useful for everyday tech: cell phones, wifi, microwaves, and all that jazz.

Ionizing is the stuff that can hurt us, like UV, X-rays, and Gamma rays. We still have all kinds of useful tech that relies on that stuff, but aside from UVA blacklights, you won't often find it in your home.

Quick edit: microwaves and non ionizing radiation can still hurt you. Microwaves excite water molecules and can cause burns to tissues under your skin. Best to try to avoid exposure.

4

Zebra03 t1_iu38wi8 wrote

It does emit a bit of radiation but ultimately should be fine in the long term, it's worser to get beamed on by the sun or have a single cigarette then it is to be close to a tv

1

KamikazeKauz t1_iu378aw wrote

This is nothing new though, it has been studied for a long long time already, so the title is pure click bait. Here's a 20 year old review on the topic: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1421942/

38

Cylius t1_iu3vi2u wrote

I mean from what I understand, the article you linked says we should get a better understanding, and this new article seems to suggest we now have that better understanding? Doesnt seem too far from a revelation

39

KamikazeKauz t1_iu57m5x wrote

The point I was trying to make is that epigenetics in cancer are not a new concept, so there is nothing revolutionary about these papers. It's not a revelation or breakthrough if dozens of other papers have found similar things over the course of the past 20 years.

−2

[deleted] t1_iu0ftwg wrote

[removed]

129

KamikazeKauz t1_iu1l50i wrote

Not sure why this is touted a breakthrough, epigenetic changes in cancers are well documented and have been studied for decades... Here is a review from 2004(!): https://www.nature.com/articles/nrc1279

41

OncoFil t1_iu24kgg wrote

I literally worked on a epigenetic targeting cancer drug… I’m on the patent and we filed it in 2019…

27

[deleted] t1_iu24k7j wrote

[deleted]

8

NorthSiderInStl t1_iu2kt1d wrote

Sadly, yes (the first epigenetics in cancer paper I was involved with was published in 2012. It wasn’t new then either).

5

Ezekiel_W OP t1_iu03gra wrote

>Two major studies published in Nature have uncovered a new level of control of cancer gene activity within tumors, termed cancer's "dark matter."
>
>The revelation shows that epigenetics, cells controlling gene activity, play a crucial role in the development of cancer. Cancers are usually tested for DNA mutations alone, which can miss this level of control, thereby failing to predict how cancers may behave and respond to treatment.

36

Twatareyousaying t1_iu0xkie wrote

This isn’t really new. We’ve known that epigenetics and methylation patterns change in cancer for several years now. I’m not sure what’s novel about this article.

23

powabiatch t1_iu14nf6 wrote

What’s novel is that the papers attribute cell-to-cell variation within a tumor to a larger degree of epigenetic regulation compared to genetic variation (i.e. mutations) than previously demonstrated. In other words, cells that look and behave different from each other within the same tumor are less so as a product of different mutations, than as a function of their epigenetic “plasticity” - suggesting more than previously shown that cells can readily change their phenotype without necessarily changing their genotype.

Which, some of us already thought so… but these papers use large datasets and brand new technology to measure it more finely than anyone has before.

30

lapseofreason t1_iu1yrlq wrote

That's a great explanation - thank you. Since you are appear very knowledgeable, care to speculate on what this increased knowledge might mean on a practical basis if anything ? Cancer survivor here - I take a keen interest in any developments.

5

powabiatch t1_iu1zggb wrote

Directly? Probably not much.

But indirectly, it can change the way other researchers approach their projects - by more carefully paying attention to epigenetic marks etc and changing the way they might model their hypotheses. It also has implications about the evolution of drug resistance, metastasis, and more. So I think this will help more researchers appreciate and incorporate non-genomic mechanisms in their thoughts - many already do, of course, but more would be better.

8

lapseofreason t1_iu1zunw wrote

Thank you. That is a helpful answer. It feels like the progress in this space is increasing on many fronts and at an increasing pace as well. Which is great

5

the_lazykins t1_iu2xmqq wrote

Hi, would you mind explaining an example of a non-genomic tx in this case, even if it’s something hypothetical? Or is that not what you meant?

1

powabiatch t1_iu30406 wrote

While there are drugs that target epigenetic regulators (e.g. Ezh2 inhibitors), it’s not clear yet how the new data would take advantage of them (if they can at all). While some of these drugs have shown promise, all of them have some drawbacks because they affect so many genes, often leading to unwanted toxicities. But hopefully this type of new data may help refine when to use which epigenetic drugs in which combinations.

Even so, epigenetic drugs may not always be the best answer to epigenetic dysregulation in cancer cells - remains to be seen though.

3

the_lazykins t1_iu30hhn wrote

Oh got it. Thank you, that gives me something to read up on tonight.

3

Chroderos t1_iu1z2j7 wrote

We’ve known for over a decade at least. I worked on similar research back in 2011 or so.

2

SpankThuMonkey t1_iu39i3c wrote

Please, please, please lets not refer to this as “dark matter”.

It’ll be a short time before quacks, morons and hucksters start peddling special remedies and “cures” based on cosmic energy and galactic gravitational force fields.

There are already people confusing the terms in this very thread.

21

Drachefly t1_iu0wqok wrote

Making a tool to help people try to do this was my first job out of college, in 2001.

Maybe it would have worked if people had used the tool with colossal data sets like this. Instead, they… threw 3 patients at it in a time series 5 elements long. Amusingly, the organization I was working for was also called the Institute for Cancer Research. Just, a much smaller one an ocean away.

6

Odd_Calligrapher_407 t1_iu2gv22 wrote

Epigenetics are not a new thing and not even associated with cancer as a concept. It’s long been known that epigenetics is responsible for a lot of differentiation and dedifferentiation so not exactly revolutionary or dark matter. I give the breathless headline a D. Not to say the studies are not good but , please it’s not like no one saw this coming…

5

shittysexadvice t1_iu4wsx0 wrote

Science journalism pro tip: when selecting a relatable metaphor to help explain a difficult science concept avoid choosing another difficult science concept.

3

FuturologyBot t1_iu08i8y wrote

The following submission statement was provided by /u/Ezekiel_W:

>Two major studies published in Nature have uncovered a new level of control of cancer gene activity within tumors, termed cancer's "dark matter."
>
>The revelation shows that epigenetics, cells controlling gene activity, play a crucial role in the development of cancer. Cancers are usually tested for DNA mutations alone, which can miss this level of control, thereby failing to predict how cancers may behave and respond to treatment.

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/yevfv6/major_breakthrough_in_cancer_research_papers/iu03gra/

1

ldb477 t1_iu1jeay wrote

Solving cancer and dark matter in one fell swoop. What a time to be alive.

1

Gamma-512 t1_iu1tkvs wrote

Now I’m wondering if cancer exists. Dark matter hasn’t even been proven.

−4