This
seems important for cancer, but also drug discovery in general, and molecular biology in general, and even science in general.
Do the dratted control experiments! They are tedious... and tell you that you are wrong.https://twitter.com/JSheltzer/status/1171850294910750721 …
-
-
Thanks. Helpful. Am only an amateur on biochem and genetic engineering, so not all of the details are clear to me. So is it the case that an agent that “binds to a target” might do lots of damage to cells (cancerous and not) so that’s why these teams got false positives?
-
Yes from my vague memory of my quick skim of the paper it seems that these molecules are just generally toxic, for unrelated reasons, which makes them unsuitable as drugs obv
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Tbf, it seems like a reasonable hypothesis, and without doing genetic knockouts it would take a lot of work to disprove in any specific case. (Afaik; I’m not at all expert on this)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Going through the paper again, they additionally found that many of the target proteins didn’t have the role in cancer that had been believed. The mistaken beliefs were due to nonspecific RNA inhibition: RNAs constructed to inhibit the target also inhibited the real culprit.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.