Brain Tumor Cells Killed by Anti-Nausea Drug

New research from the University of Adelaide has shown for the first time that the growth of brain tumors can be halted by a drug currently being used to help patients recover from the side effects of chemotherapy.

The discovery has been made during a study looking at the relationship between brain tumors and a peptide associated with inflammation in the brain, called "substance P."
Substance P is commonly released throughout the body by the nervous system, and contributes to tissue swelling following injury. In the brain, levels of substance P greatly increase after traumatic brain injury and stroke.

"Researchers have known for some time that levels of substance P are also greatly increased in different tumor types around the body," says Dr Elizabeth Harford-Wright, a postdoctoral fellow in the University's Adelaide Centre for Neuroscience Research.

"We wanted to know if these elevated levels of the peptide were also present in brain tumor cells, and if so, whether or not they were affecting tumor growth. Importantly, we wanted to see if we could stop tumor growth by blocking substance P."

In laboratory studies for her PhD, Dr Harford-Wright found that levels of substance P were greatly increased in brain tumor tissue.
Knowing that substance P binds to a receptor called NK1, Dr Harford-Wright used an antagonist drug called Emend® to stop substance P binding to the receptor. Emend® is already used in cancer clinics to help patients with chemotherapy-induced nausea.

The results were startling.

"We were successful in blocking substance P from binding to the NK1 receptor, which resulted in a reduction in brain tumor growth -- and it also caused cell death in the tumor cells," Dr Harford-Wright says.
"So preventing the actions of substance P from carrying out its role in brain tumors actually halted the growth of brain cancer.

"This is a very exciting result, and it offers further opportunities to study possible brain tumor treatments over the coming years."

This research has been funded by the NeuroSurgical Research Foundation (NRF), which is celebrating 50 years of supporting neurosurgical research in Australia and at the University of Adelaide.



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130319124221.htm



Wait...Substance P a la Gabapentin?

Sehr interesting..

Why do you think Substance P = Gabapentin?

Doesn't Gabapentin inhibit substance P release?

Always have my hackles up when they use the brand, not generic name. Too lazy to research now though...

inb4 peanut gallery posts about how cannabis is better at both being antiemetic and anti-neoplastic agent, in all cases, no exceptions and that this is just big science trying to suppress the almighty pancea that is weed.

Substance P sounds like some wonderful made up drug out of "naked lunch" or something along those lines

rangrz said:

inb4 peanut gallery posts about how cannabis is better at both being antiemetic and anti-neoplastic agent, in all cases, no exceptions and that this is just big science trying to suppress the almighty pancea that is weed.

Click to expand...

That kind of thing does tend to happen frequently on this site.

wow thats pretty interesting. substance p does have a funny name to it,

there is a dieselboy mix called substance d, that when played really loud probably kills your brain cells lol. love it tho.

rangrz said:

inb4 peanut gallery posts about how cannabis is better at both being antiemetic and anti-neoplastic agent, in all cases, no exceptions and that this is just big science trying to suppress the almighty pancea that is weed.

Click to expand...

It wouldn't surprise me if that were true though. Cannabis is an effective anti-emetic and has tumor reducing properties (at least in vitro); NK1 antagonists (which block the binding of substance P) are also effective in treating cannabis dependence (whatever that is):

http://www.labome.org/grant/r01/da/...nnabis-withdrawal-and-dependence-8069123.html

Big science certainly has motives to suppress research into cannabis.
I am a huge fan of cannabis.
But, personally, I would like to know all of the drugs that kill cancerous cells. At the least, it is important to compare the rate of cancer cell death, and it may be possible to combine various drugs for a better result.
I think it is very valuable information, and a happy result to this study.

I'm not even sure what "Big Science" means Tbh.

Space Station? LHC/RHIC? ITER? NIF? Those are what I'd call Big Science, but like, they're all wanky physical science experiments with very few applications, NIF is practical, but not profitable (nuclear weapons) ITER is theoretically profitable at some point, but not any time soon (magnetic confinement fusion power)

Obscure pharma is not big science IMO.

^ Funny you should say that - I also was a bit unclear, but assumed that you were talking about science + big business + pharm industry.

I was just trying to use the kind of jargon used by the typical hippy, alt-med, anti-anything done with rigour or that involves non-trivial amounts of technology crowd.