Get smarter, faster. Subscribe to our daily newsletter.
Detecting breast cancer 5 years before clinical signs
The possibility of an easy, non-invasive detection method arises.
- A blood test that spots breast cancer five years ahead of clinical signs could give new meaning to "early detection."
- Auto-antibodies for tumor antigens predict the presence of the disease.
- Researchers say the blood test could be clinic-ready in 4-5 years.
Researchers from the University of Nottingham have developed a method of blood screening they believe could ultimately lead to the detection of breast cancer five years before clinical indicators appear. Such extremely early detection would presumably offer patients and their doctors an unprecedented head start at preventing the disease's progression. The availability of such an advanced warning would be a potent addition to the growing arsenal of weapons against breast cancer that include a breast-cancer vaccine.
Antigens and their auto-antibodies
Antigens and T-cells
Image source: Juan Gaertner /Shutterstock
Antigens are substances produced by cells, including tumor cells. When an antigen comes into contact with other cells in the body, the immune system generates an antibody optimized specifically for that antigen called "auto-antibodies."
The team from Nottingham has found that the presence of tumor-associated antigens (TAAs) constitutes a reliable indicator of cancer. Likewise, the presence of an antigen's auto-antibody is a good indicator that the antigen, and thus a tumor, is present.
The researchers developed blood panels against which blood can be screened using protein microarray for auto-antibodies linked to TAAs associated with breast cancer tumors. The team was able to screen for 40 such antibodies overall, as well as 27 not associated with the disease, with each panel targeted to a subset of those.
Image source: Victor Moussa/Shutterstock
The researchers from the Centre of Excellence for Autoimmunity in Cancer (CEAC) group at Nottingham's School of Medicine took blood samples from 90 breast cancer patients shortly after diagnosis, and from a control group of 90 volunteers not afflicted with the disease.
According to Daniyah Alfattani, one of the researchers, "The results of our study showed that breast cancer does induce auto-antibodies against panels of specific tumor-associated antigens. We were able to detect cancer with reasonable accuracy by identifying these autoantibodies in the blood."
The team focused on three panels: One with five TAAs, one with seven, and one with nine. The larger the panel, the more accurate the testing, as it turned out.
- With the panel of five TAAs, breast cancer was detected in 29% of the samples from cancer patients, while 84% of the control samples were positively identified as being without cancer.
- With seven TAAs, the cancer-detection rate rose to 35%, while the findings of no disease in the control group went down slightly to 79%.
- A nine-TAA panel was similar, correctly detecting cancer in 37% of cancer patients, and its absence verified it in 79% of the control group.
Image source: Simon Annable/Shutterstock
While accurate cancer detection in roughly 30% of patients isn't anywhere near good enough for widespread use as a diagnostic tool, the researchers are nonetheless upbeat about the results. "We need to develop and further validate this test," says Alfattani. "However, these results are encouraging and indicate that it's possible to detect a signal for early breast cancer. Once we have improved the accuracy of the test, then it opens the possibility of using a simple blood test to improve early detection of the disease."
Further study is currently underway with 800 patients being tested using a panel of nine TAAs, and the researchers expect to see greater accuracy in this larger cohort.
If there's a chance of substantially improving accuracy in this approach to early detection, the benefits would be obvious. Says Alfattani, "A blood test for early breast cancer detection would be cost effective, which would be of particular value in low- and middle-income countries. It would also be an easier screening method to implement compared to current methods, such as mammography."
The researchers estimate that with full funding, a clinic-ready version of the test could be developed in four to five years.
The study was presented at the 2019 NCRI Cancer Conference in Glasgow, and NCRI CEO Iain Frame is impressed. "Early diagnosis using simple, non-invasive ways of detecting the first signs of cancer is a key strategic priority for NCRI and something we'd all like to see working in practice. The results from this pilot study for a blood test to detect early breast cancer are promising and build on this research group's expertise in other cancers, such as lung cancer. It's obviously early days but we look forward to seeing the results from the larger group of patients that are now being investigated."
These alien-like creatures are virtually invisible in the deep sea.
- A team of marine biologists used nets to catch 16 species of deep-sea fish that have evolved the ability to be virtually invisible to prey and predators.
- "Ultra-black" skin seems to be an evolutionary adaptation that helps fish camouflage themselves in the deep sea, which is illuminated by bioluminescent organisms.
- There are likely more, and potentially much darker, ultra-black fish lurking deep in the ocean.
The Pacific blackdragon
Credit: Karen Osborn/Smithsonian<p>When researchers first saw the deep-sea species, it wasn't immediately obvious that their skin was ultra-black. Then, marine biologist Karen Osborn, a co-author on the new paper, noticed something strange about the photos she took of the fish.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"I had tried to take pictures of deep-sea fish before and got nothing but these really horrible pictures, where you can't see any detail," Osborn told <em><a href="https://www.wired.com/story/meet-the-ultra-black-vantafish/" target="_blank">Wired</a></em>. "How is it that I can shine two strobe lights at them and all that light just disappears?"</p><p>After examining samples of fish skin under the microscope, the researchers discovered that the fish skin contains a layer of organelles called melanosomes, which contain melanin, the same pigment that gives color to human skin and hair. This layer of melanosomes absorbs most of the light that hits them.</p>
A crested bigscale
Credit: Karen Osborn/Smithsonian<p style="margin-left: 20px;">"But what isn't absorbed side-scatters into the layer, and it's absorbed by the neighboring pigments that are all packed right up close to it," Osborn told <em>Wired</em>. "And so what they've done is create this super-efficient, very-little-material system where they can basically build a light trap with just the pigment particles and nothing else."</p><p>The result? Strange and terrifying deep-sea species, like the crested bigscale, fangtooth, and Pacific blackdragon, all of which appear in the deep sea as barely more than faint silhouettes.</p>
David Csepp, NMFS/AKFSC/ABL<p>But interestingly, this unique disappearing trick wasn't passed on to these species by a common ancestor. Rather, they each developed it independently. As such, the different species use their ultra-blackness for different purposes. For example, the threadfin dragonfish only has ultra-black skin during its adolescent years, when it's rather defenseless, as <em>Wired</em> <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/meet-the-ultra-black-vantafish/" target="_blank">notes</a>.</p><p>Other fish—like the <a href="http://onebugaday.blogspot.com/2016/06/a-new-anglerfish-oneirodes-amaokai.html" target="_blank">oneirodes species</a>, which use bioluminescent lures to bait prey—probably evolved ultra-black skin to avoid reflecting the light their own bodies produce. Meanwhile, species like <em>C. acclinidens</em> only have ultra-black skin around their gut, possibly to hide light of bioluminescent fish they've eaten.</p><p>Given that these newly described species are just ones that this team found off the coast of California, there are likely many more, and possibly much darker, ultra-black fish swimming in the deep ocean. </p>
Using machine-learning technology, the genealogy company My Heritage enables users to animate static images of their relatives.
- Deep Nostalgia uses machine learning to animate static images.
- The AI can animate images by "looking" at a single facial image, and the animations include movements such as blinking, smiling and head tilting.
- As deepfake technology becomes increasingly sophisticated, some are concerned about how bad actors might abuse the technology to manipulate the pubic.
My Heritage/Deep Nostalgia<p>But that's not to say the animations are perfect. As with most deep-fake technology, there's still an uncanny air to the images, with some of the facial movements appearing slightly unnatural. What's more, Deep Nostalgia is only able to create deepfakes of one person's face from the neck up, so you couldn't use it to animate group photos, or photos of people doing any sort of physical activity.</p>
My Heritage/Deep Nostalgia<p>But for a free deep-fake service, Deep Nostalgia is pretty impressive, especially considering you can use it to create deepfakes of <em>any </em>face, human or not. </p>
How long should one wait until an idea like string theory, seductive as it may be, is deemed unrealistic?
- How far should we defend an idea in the face of contrarian evidence?
- Who decides when it's time to abandon an idea and deem it wrong?
- Science carries within it its seeds from ancient Greece, including certain prejudices of how reality should or shouldn't be.
Plato used the allegory of the cave to explain that what humans see and experience is not the true reality.
Credit: Gothika via Wikimedia Commons CC 4.0<p>When scientists and mathematicians use the term <em>Platonic worldview</em>, that's what they mean in general: The unbound capacity of reason to unlock the secrets of creation, one by one. Einstein, for one, was a believer, preaching the fundamental reasonableness of nature; no weird unexplainable stuff, like a god that plays dice—his tongue-in-cheek critique of the belief that the unpredictability of the quantum world was truly fundamental to nature and not just a shortcoming of our current understanding. Despite his strong belief in such underlying order, Einstein recognized the imperfection of human knowledge: "What I see of Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility." (Quoted by Dukas and Hoffmann in <em>Albert Einstein, The Human Side: Glimpses from His Archives</em> (1979), 39.)</p> <p>Einstein embodies the tension between these two clashing worldviews, a tension that is still very much with us today: On the one hand, the Platonic ideology that the fundamental stuff of reality is logical and understandable to the human mind, and, on the other, the acknowledgment that our reasoning has limitations, that our tools have limitations and thus that to reach some sort of final or complete understanding of the material world is nothing but an impossible, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01K2JTGIA?tag=bigthink00-20&linkCode=ogi&th=1&psc=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">semi-religious dream</a>.</p>