tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-359974586358440142024-02-08T10:32:31.520-05:00Cancer Stem Cell NewsA blog of news items related to cancer stem cells, with an emphasis on recent research and articles that are openly accessible.Jim Tillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02092503335133096747noreply@blogger.comBlogger288125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35997458635844014.post-7207058552004332542020-02-01T14:16:00.005-05:002021-11-29T12:21:41.290-05:00More about the "discovery" of stem cellsThis post isn't specifically about cancer stem cells. It`s a response to a recent tweet and an earlier blog post about stem cells by Paul Knoepfler (<a href="https://twitter.com/pknoepfler" target="_blank">@pknoepfler</a>).<br />
<br />
Knoepfler, on January 30, 2020, posted an ICYMI (<a href="https://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/ICYMI" target="_blank">In Case You Missed It</a>) on Twitter. The<a href="https://twitter.com/pknoepfler/status/1222933597536931840" target="_blank"> ICYMI</a> pointed to a blog post of his, dated April 11, 2012, entitled "<a href="https://ipscell.com/2012/04/who-really-discovered-stem-cells-the-history-you-need-to-know/" target="_blank">Who really discovered stem cells? The history you need to know</a>". In this post he questioned claims made by others that Ernest McCulloch and I discovered stem cells.<br />
<br />
I didn't respond to the original 2012 post, and the comments section has now closed. Replies about the ICYMI tweet itself are constrained by Twitter`s limits on character count. Hence this blog-based response.<br />
<br />
There were three main reasons why I didn't respond to the original post by Knoepfler in 2012. Firstly, I had no disagreement with most of the historical content of his post (except for some of his comments about our own work). Secondly, Ernest McCulloch wasn't alive (<a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(11)60191-8/fulltext" target="_blank">obituary</a> in <i>The Lancet</i>) to contribute to our customary joint response. Thirdly, one major point that I would have made in any response had already been well-expressed by Lisa Willemse (<a href="https://twitter.com/WillemseLA" target="_blank">@WillemseLA</a>).<br />
<br />
Lisa pointed out, in this excerpt from her <a href="https://ipscell.com/2012/04/who-really-discovered-stem-cells-the-history-you-need-to-know/#comment-2811" target="_blank">comment</a> on the original post by Knoepfler, "<i>The term “discovery” is not one they would have chosen to describe their work, yet it has been given to them for the very reasons you mention here – a desire to have scientific heros, to claim “firsts”, and our (and the media’s) preference for absolutes". </i><br />
<br />
Ernest McCulloch was a hematologist. He knew that the concept of stem cells of the blood-forming system had existed in the literature for many years. The concept was so well known that it was included in textbooks for medical students, such as Ham's <i>Histology</i>. A review, in 1954, of the 2nd edition of Arthur Ham's book is available <a href="https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1113/expphysiol.1954.sp001076" target="_blank">here</a> [click on the PDF icon].<br />
<br />
Ernest McCulloch was also aware that many attempts had been made to identify individual stem cells using histological techniques. An example was provided by the work of Clermont and Leblond, such as a paper of theirs published in 1953, "<a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/aja.1000930308" target="_blank">Renewal of spermatogonia in the rat</a>". Ernest believed that such techniques, when applied to the search for stem cells of the blood-forming system, could not yield unequivocal results.<br />
<br />
Knoepfer, in his original blog post, noted that he found "<i>it very curiously puzzling that Till and McCulloch did not employ the name “stem</i> cells” ..." in a paper published in <i>Nature</i> [1963(2 Feb); 197(4866): 452-454]. A <a href="https://www.jimmunol.org/content/192/11/4945.long" target="_blank">copy</a> of this paper is openly accessible [click on the PDF icon] via <i> J. Immunol. </i> [2014 Jun 1;192(11):4945-7]. The first author of this paper was the excellent experimentalist Andy Becker (<a href="http://www.moleculargenetics.utoronto.ca/announcements/2015/8/11/remembering-dr-andrew-becker" target="_blank">tribute</a>), a medical graduate who had undertaken a Ph.D. program within our research group.<br />
<br />
The reason that we didn't use the term "stem cells" in this paper was because we were not yet convinced that the cells we were studying were actually stem cells. It's only after further work, published in a less prominent journal, that we became convinced that we were, indeed, dealing with cells that had the properties expected of stem cells. This paper was entitled <a href="https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/2778" target="_blank">The distribution of colony-forming cells among spleen colonies</a>, <i>Journal of Cellular and Comparative Physiology</i> [1963(Dec); 62(3): 327-336], It's openly accessible via the TSpace repository of the University of Toronto Libraries [<a href="https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/2778/2/JCP_1963_62_327.pdf" target="_blank">PDF</a>]. The need for stem cells to be capable of self-renewal as a crucial component of a definition of stem cells was emphasized in this paper.The first author of this paper, and the initiator of the work described in it, was <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Siminovitch" target="_blank">Lou Siminovitch</a>, a valued mentor during the early stages of my research career.<br />
<br />
Why has the later (Dec. 1963) paper in the <i>Journal of Cellular and Comparative Physiology</i> received less attention than the earlier (Feb. 1963) paper in <i>Nature</i>? I think it's obvious that <i>Nature's</i> high Journal Impact Factor (JIF) provides a credible basis for the difference.The JIF continues to be used to assess the quality of individual publications, even though it has been questioned whether their use has been good for science. See, for example: <a href="https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1801/1801.08992.pdf" target="_blank">The Journal Impact Factor: a brief history, critique, and discussion of adverse effects,</a> <i>arXiv preprint</i> [arXiv:1801.08992, 201, PDF]. It should be noted that Eugene Garfield first mentioned the idea of an impact factor in 1955, but the Science Citation Index was first published in 1961. See: <a href="http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/jamajif2006.pdf" target="_blank">The History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor</a>, Garfield E, <i>JAMA</i>, [January 4, 2006—Vol 295, No. 1 (PDF, Reprinted)]. Garfield responded to critics of the JIF in this article. It is noteworthy that our papers were published at a time when the JIF was just beginning to be developed. It didn't have the cachet then that it still does now.<br />
<br />
Our early work related to stem cells of the murine blood-forming system was reported in three papers. The first was published in <i>Radiation Research</i> [February 1961, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 213-222] and entitled: <a href="https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/2781"target="_blank">A direct measurement of the radiation sensitivity of normal mouse bone marrow cells</a>. The full text of this paper is openly accessible [PDF] via the TSpace repository at the University of Toronto Libraries, at: <a href="https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/2781/2/RadRes_1961_14_213.pdf" target="_blank">http://hdl.handle.net/1807/2781</a>. The second was the paper in <i>Nature</i> [1963(2 Feb); 197(4866): 452-454] referred to above. The third was the paper in the <i>Journal of Cellular and Comparative Physiology</i> [1963(Dec); 62(3): 327-336] also referred to above. These three papers form a package. As noted above, it was only in the third, in 1963, that we began to use the term "stem cells".<br />
<br />
Although I was somewhat taken aback by Paul Knopfler's apparent unawareness of the full package of three papers described above, I laud him for his exemplary accomplishments, especially as a blogger and advocate. In particular, I'd point to his efforts as a voice of caution in relation to unproven stem cell treatments. See, for example: <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/rise-unproven-stem-cell-therapies-turned-obscure-scientist-industry-watchdog" target="_blank">The rise of unproven stem cell therapies turned this obscure scientist into an industry watchdog</a>, by Kelley Servick, <i>Science</i> Aug. 3, 2017.<br />
<br />
Jim Tillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02092503335133096747noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35997458635844014.post-40572784795185540332019-12-30T16:40:00.000-05:002019-12-30T18:20:46.706-05:00Examples of Research on CSCs during 2019There's a section on <a href="https://www.nature.com/subjects/cancer-stem-cells" target="_blank"><b>Cancer Stem Cells</b></a> in <i>Nature</i>. <br />
The current subsection on <b>Latest Research and Reviews</b> lists articles published in December, 2019. Some these are openly-accessible and some are not. <br />
Another current subsection, on <b>News and Comment</b>, lists more articles published during 2019.<br />
All of these articles have been published in Nature Research journals. Nature Research is part of Springer Nature.Jim Tillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02092503335133096747noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35997458635844014.post-81596546488187254292018-12-31T12:36:00.000-05:002018-12-31T12:36:47.616-05:00A Decade on TwitterI joined <a href="https://twitter.com/jimtill" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Twitter</a> in August of 2008. My emphasis has been mainly on<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/cancerSC?src=hash" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> #cancerSC</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/OpenAccess?src=hash" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">#OpenAccess</a>. For several years, I've used Twitter, rather than this blog, as a means for providing information about selected recent research on cancer stem cells. How much attention has been paid to these tweets?<br />
<br />
I currently have 965 followers on Twitter. The recently-acquired followers appear to be either scientists, or people who have no obvious interest in either #cancerSC or #OpenAccess. Is 965 a satisfactory number of followers? Neither of the main foci of my Twitter posts can be regarded as mainstream topics, so my modest target has been 1000 followers. The total is almost there (after a decade!). A substantial proportion of those followers who identify themselves as scientists mention an interest in stem cells and/or regenerative medicine. Fewer reveal any interest in Open Access. I cannot provide any useful quantitative information about the individual interests of all 965 followers, because of major uncertainties about how best to classify their interests.<br />
<br />
Perhaps the attention paid to individual tweets might provide a quantitative assessment of their impact? If so, the results are sobering. Over the past year, no tweets hashmarked #cancerSC have earned "retweets" or "likes" beyond the single digits. (A few tweets hashmarked #OpenAccess have accumulated retweets and likes beyond the single digits, but the most popular ones have been ones that I retweeted, rather than ones that I posted myself).<br />
<br />
How to account for these rather unimpressive statistics? Several explanations come to mind.<br />
<br />
One is that many people who become followers on Twitter don't actually look at many tweets. Also, perhaps those who do look seldom retweet them (nor indicate that they like them).<br />
<br />
Another explanation for the apparent lack of attention is that most of the tweets are indeed uninteresting (or far too specialized) except perhaps to a very few who do find them useful.<br />
<br />
There are other possible explanations, but perhaps it's time to ask another question. If the individual tweets have little impact, as measured by retweets and likes, why post them?<br />
<br />
I have two main answers to this question. Firstly, these posts provide an incentive for me to keep up with current publications about cancer stem cells. The literature on all of stem cell research is too extensive for one person to manage, but a subset of particular interest isn't. Secondly, the total number of followers (965) isn't, to my mind, a trivial number {see also above).<br />
<br />
One last question. Are most of the followers still there because they haven't bothered to unfollow, or because they occasionally find some tweets to be of interest, or because they are interested in the author of the tweets? No relevant data. Don't know.<br />
<br />
Best wishes for 2019!<br />
Jim Tillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02092503335133096747noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35997458635844014.post-43614642440981945562017-12-31T15:35:00.002-05:002022-04-16T16:00:44.646-04:00Tweets about cancer stem cells v2<p><i>This is Version 2 of a previous <a href="http://bit.ly/1xmScvh" target="_blank">post</a> dated September 5, 2014</i>.</p>
<p>I've had a long-term interest in research on cancer in general, and <a title="cancer stem cells" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_stem_cell" target="_blank">cancer stem cells</a> (CSCs) in particular. See, for example, "A stem cell model of human tumor growth: implications for tumor cell clonogenic assays", <em>J Natl Cancer Inst</em>. 1983 Jan;70(1):9-16 [<a title="PubMed" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6571928" target="_blank">PubMed</a>]. I've been trying to keep up with the current literature about CSCs, and have found the task to be a challenging one.</p>
<p>Effective ways to filter the voluminous academic literature are badly needed. Social media have provided a possible route to this goal. I've been exploring a few such media, and especially <a title="Twitter" href="https://twitter.com/" target="_blank">Twitter</a>.</p>
<p>I've been a <a title="member of Twitter" href="https://twitter.com/jimtill" target="_blank">member of Twitter</a> since December 2008. I've posted over 4,500 tweets since then. Almost all of them have been about either CSCs or <a title="open access" href="http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/brief.htm" target="_blank">open access</a> (OA).</p>
<p>My tweets about CSCs have included the <a title="hashtag" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashtag" target="_blank">hashtag</a> #cancerSC. I usually post about 5-10 tweets with this hashtag per month. Previous tweets can be accessed by <a title="searching within Twitter" href="https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=%23cancerSC&src=typd" target="_blank">searching within Twitter</a> for the #cancerSC hashtag.</p>
<p>As sources of information for recent news and publications about CSCs, I've used the following:</p>
<p>a) <a title="PubMed" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/" target="_blank">PubMed</a> searches for "cancer stem", with the results sent via <a title="PubMed RSS" href="http://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/disted/pubmedtutorial/040_060.html" target="_blank">PubMed RSS</a> to the RSS reader <a title="Feedly" href="http://feedly.com/index.html" target="_blank">Feedly</a>. My main focus is on articles published within the last month. PubMed is my main source of relevant information.</p>
<p>b) <a title="Google Alerts" href="https://www.google.com/alerts" target="_blank">Google Alerts</a>, to monitor the web for interesting new content about the keywords "cancer stem".</p>
<p>c) Occasionally, other contributors to Twitter.</p>
<p>These sources (especially PubMed) provide a cornucopia of information about what's new in stem cell research and development. My major challenge has been an editorial one: which aspects of all this information should be selected and tweeted about?</p>
<p><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Screening Step 1</span>: A useful screening tool has been the <a title="Altmetric Bookmarklet" href="http://www.altmetric.com/bookmarklet.php" target="_blank">Altmetric Bookmarklet</a>. At present, this Bookmarklet only works on <a title="PubMed" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed" target="_blank">PubMed</a>, the <a title="arXiv" href="http://arxiv.org/" target="_blank">arXiv</a> repository, or pages containing a <a title="digital object identifier" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier" target="_blank">digital object identifier</a> (DOI). Twitter mentions (noted by Altmetric) are only available for articles published since July 2011.</p>
<p>Using the bookmarklet, I screen the results sent by the PubMed RSS, and select for further examination those articles that have non-zero article level metrics. If <a title="Altmetric" href="http://www.altmetric.com/" target="_blank">Altmetric</a> has picked up sharing activity around an article, I proceed to Screening Step 2. (For anyone not familiar with <a title="Altmetric.com" href="http://www.altmetric.com/about.php" target="_blank">Altmetric.com</a>, it's a site that provides assessments of <a title="article level metrics" href="https://www.plos.org/publish/metrics/metrics" target="_blank">article level metrics</a> or <a title="altmetrics" href="http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/" target="_blank">altmetrics</a>). (The Altmetric score is now called the <a href="https://www.altmetric.com/blog/the-altmetric-score-is-now-the-altmetric-attention-score/" target="_blank">Altmetric Attention Score</a>).</p>
<p><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Screening Step 2</span>: The next screening step is to subject the title of each article to a <a title="Twitter Search" href="https://twitter.com/search-home" target="_blank">Twitter Search</a>, which allows one to search for tweets that have included this title. If such a search reveals at least a two tweets about the article, I go the 3rd Screening Step. I currently do a Twitter Search only if the article has a non-zero Altmetric score. My experience has been that it's extremely rare for articles with an Altmetric score of zero to yield any tweets, as assessed by a Twitter Search.</p>
<p><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Screening Step 3</span>: I'm a supporter of <a title="Open Access" href="http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/brief.htm" target="_blank">Open Access</a>. So, I next check whether or not the article is freely accessible (no paywalls). If there are no paywalls, I prepare a tweet about the article. If I do run into a paywall, I only prepare a tweet if either the Altmetric Attention Score or the results from a Twitter Search, or my own reading of the article, yields a very positive impression. I indicate in the tweet that the article is not OA. I do this by putting ($) after the title of the article.</p>
<p>Some users of Twitter focus their attention on the literature related to a particular topic. One example is <a href="https://twitter.com/hypoxiapapers" target="_blank">Hypoxia Adaptation</a>, "A feed for hypoxia related papers published in NCBI, ArXiv, bioArxiv, and PeerJ". Another is <a href="https://twitter.com/epigen_papers" target="_blank">epigenetics_papers</a>, "Chromatin & epigenetics paper feed from #Pubmed and #Arxiv". It's unclear what criteria (other than the topic of interest) are used as the basis for tweets from these users. So, I'm currently discounting such tweets, in comparison with others that do not originate from feeds such as these.</p>
<p>The targeted viewers for my tweets are anyone interested in current research on CSCs. The tweets are <i>not</i> targeted only at those active in research on CSCs. Hence the somewhat higher priority given to articles that have no paywalls. It should be noted that only a very small percentage of articles (less than 5%) reach Screening Step 3.</p>
<p>Of course. there's no way to avoid some subjectivity in an editorial process of this kind. So, I occasionally ignore the results of the screening process and tweet about articles that I especially liked. And, no doubt, some interesting articles will be missed. The greater the sensitivity and specificity of the screening process, the more likely it is that all of the relevant articles will be found and the irrelevant articles rejected.</p>
<p>For an example of a positive view about tweets, see: <a title="Can Tweets Predict Citations? Metrics of Social Impact Based on Twitter and Correlation with Traditional Metrics of Scientific Impact" href="http://www.jmir.org/2011/4/e123/" target="_blank">Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact</a> by <a title="Gunther Eysenbach" href="https://twitter.com/eysenbach" target="_blank"><strong>Gunther Eysenbach</strong></a> (2011).</p>
<p>Examples of positive views about altmetrics are: <a title="Altmetrics in the Wild: Using Social Media to Explore Scholarly Impact" href="http://arxiv.org/html/1203.4745" target="_blank">Altmetrics in the Wild: Using Social Media to Explore Scholarly Impact</a> by <a title="Jason Priem" href="https://twitter.com/jasonpriem" target="_blank"><strong>Jason Priem</strong></a>, <a title="Heather Piwowar" href="https://twitter.com/researchremix" target="_blank"><strong>Heather Piwowar</strong></a> & <a title="Bradley Hemminger" href="http://ils.unc.edu/bmh/" target="_blank"><strong>Bradley Hemminger</strong></a> (2012) and <a title="Value all research products" href="http://researchremix.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/full-text-value-all-research-products/" target="_blank">Value all research products</a> by <a title="Heather Piwowar" href="https://twitter.com/researchremix" target="_blank"><strong>Heather Piwowar</strong></a> (2013).</p>
<p>I'm aware of criticisms of a screening process which relies heavily on altmetrics and tweets. For examples of such criticisms, see: <a title="Twitter buzz about papers does not mean citations later" href="http://www.nature.com/news/twitter-buzz-about-papers-does-not-mean-citations-later-1.14354" target="_blank">Twitter buzz about papers does not mean citations later</a> by <a title="Richard Van Noorden" href="https://twitter.com/Richvn" target="_blank"><strong>Richard Van Noorden</strong></a> (2013), <a title="Why you should ignore altmetrics and other bibliometric nightmares" href="http://www.dcscience.net/?p=6369" target="_blank">Why you should ignore altmetrics and other bibliometric nightmares</a> by <a title="David Colquhoun" href="https://twitter.com/@david_colquhoun" target="_blank"><strong>David Colquhoun</strong></a> & <a title="Andrew Plested" href="http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/files/2014/05/andrew_plested.jpg" target="_blank"><strong>Andrew Plested</strong></a> (2014) and <a title="Weaknesses of Altmetrics" href="https://www.openuphub.eu/component/k2/item/628-weaknesses-of-altmetrics" target="_blank">Weaknesses of Altmetrics</a> (undated, and authors not identified).</p>
<p>My own view is that tweets and altmetrics merit further exploration, as indicators of "attention". Of course, one needs to watch out for "gaming" (see: <a title="Gaming altmetrics" href="http://www.altmetric.com/blog/gaming-altmetrics/" target="_blank">Gaming altmetrics</a>). However, my own examination of tweets and altmetrics related to CSCs has yielded little evidence of gaming. Instead, the tweets I've seen (note that <a title="the coverage of all the altmetrics except for Twitter seems to be low" href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0064841" target="_blank">the coverage of all the altmetrics except for Twitter seems to be low</a>) almost always appear to be the result of authentic-looking attention from real people. Occasionally, I've seen some evidence of gaming, but such articles haven't survived the screening procedure.</p>
<p style="text-align: left;">I do not believe that Impact Factors should be regarded as the unquestioned gold standard for indicators used to assess impact (see, for example, <a title="Impact Factors: A Broken System" href="https://uc3.cdlib.org/2013/05/22/impact-factors-a-broken-system/" target="_blank">Impact Factors: A Broken System</a> by <a title="<strong>Carly Strasser</strong>" href="https://twitter.com/carlystrasser" target="_blank">Carly Strasser</a>, 2013). Of course, the gold standard for oneself is one's own opinion upon reading a publication. But, <a title="no one can read everything" href="http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/" target="_blank">no one can read everything</a>.</p>
<p>An article, <a title="How to tame the flood of literature" href="http://www.nature.com/news/how-to-tame-the-flood-of-literature-1.15806" target="_blank">How to tame the flood of literature</a> by <a title="Elizabeth Gibney" href="https://twitter.com/LizzieGibney" target="_blank"><strong>Elizabeth Gibney</strong></a> in <em>Nature</em> (03 September 2014), provides comments about emerging literature-recommendation engines. I haven't yet tested all of these, but they do clearly merit attention.</p>
<p>I'd be very grateful for any suggestions about ways to improve the efficiency, sensitivity and specificity of a screening process of the kind outlined in this post.</p>
Jim Tillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02092503335133096747noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35997458635844014.post-16075220891199450842016-02-04T18:51:00.002-05:002016-02-04T18:58:51.665-05:00Canadian cancer stem cell Dream Team announcedA headline in today's Globe and Mail: "Canadian ‘dream team’ to probe stem-cell link to brain cancer". The article, by Ivan Semeniuk (<a href="https://twitter.com/@ivansemeniuk" target="_blank">@ivansemeniuk</a>), is available online <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadian-dream-team-to-probe-stem-cell-link-to-brain-cancer/article28548224/" target="_blank">here</a>.Jim Tillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02092503335133096747noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35997458635844014.post-51513618998154383242015-08-31T18:46:00.001-04:002017-12-31T15:46:02.988-05:00The #cancerSC hashtag on Twitter<p></p>
<p><u>From the Editor</u>: I switched some time ago to the use of Twitter, instead of this blog, as a place to post items about selected recent news or research reports related to cancer stem cells. See: <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/cancerSC" target="_blank">https://twitter.com/hashtag/cancerSC</a></p>
<p>For a summary of the methods used to select items to be identified using the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/cancerSC" target="_blank">#cancerSC</a> hashtag, see: <a href="http://cancerstemcellnews.blogspot.ca/2017/12/tweets-about-cancer-stem-cells-v2.html" target="_blank">Tweets about cancer stem cells v2</a>.</p> Jim Tillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02092503335133096747noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35997458635844014.post-47740107331172079942014-10-22T11:44:00.000-04:002014-10-22T11:47:46.233-04:00SU2C Canada Cancer Stem Cell Dream Team Research Funding<br>
<p><strong>Description</strong> (see: <a title="http://www.aacrcanada.ca/pages/stemcell.aspx" href="http://www.aacrcanada.ca/pages/stemcell.aspx" target="_blank">http://www.aacrcanada.ca/pages/stemcell.aspx</a>)</p>
<blockquote>The Stand Up To Cancer (SU2C) Canada Cancer Stem Cell Dream Team Research Funding represents a new, focused effort to implement advances in Cancer Stem Cell research as rapidly as possible through the creation of a collaborative, translational cancer research "Dream Team." The most talented and promising researchers across Canadian institutions will be assembled into a pan-Canadian Dream Team, forming an optimal configuration of expertise needed to solve key problems in Cancer Stem Cells and positively impact patients in the near future. This Dream Team will span multiple disciplines and utilize the new tools of modern biology, with an emphasis on genomics, to attack research questions in a coordinated way. The Dream Team will have mechanisms for sharing of resources and platforms (knowledge, talent, tools, technologies, etc.) across the Team including existing platforms and resources as well as those to be developed, incorporating new methods and technologies into the research groups, and training and networking across the Dream Team. Mechanisms to foster collaborations within and among the Dream Teams will be employed, an approach that promotes the sharing of information and a goal-oriented focus on measurable milestones of progress.</blockquote>
<blockquote>There are currently $10.6 million CAD available for this SU2C Canada Cancer Stem Cell Dream Team, with funds from the CSCC (through Genome Canada and CIHR) and SU2C Canada. The SU2C Canada Cancer Stem Cell Dream Team will be funded for a four-year term.</blockquote>
<blockquote>In addition to the funds available from the CSCC (through Genome Canada and CIHR) and SU2C Canada, the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research (OICR) has made available up to $3 million of supplemental funds to support clinical trial activities should the successful proposal include clinical trial activities within the province of Ontario (please see "SU2C Canada-OICR Cancer Clinical Trials: Canadian Dream Team Supplementary Funding" document which can be downloaded from proposalCENTRAL). It should be noted that clinical trial activities in any region of the country can be supported by the $10.6 million available from Genome Canada, CIHR, and SU2C Canada. Continued efforts to partner and collaborate with other organizations to support the objectives of the SU2C Canada Cancer Stem Cell Dream Team are ongoing. As other partnerships are confirmed the relevant information will be communicated to potential applicants. Applicants are also encouraged to explore potential partnering and collaboration opportunities.</blockquote>
<p>The SU2C website is at: <a title="http://www.standup2cancer.org/" href="http://www.standup2cancer.org/" target="_blank">http://www.standup2cancer.org/</a></p>
<p>SU2C on Twitter is at: <a href="https://twitter.com/SU2C" title="https://twitter.com/SU2C" target="_blank">https://twitter.com/SU2C</a></p>Jim Tillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02092503335133096747noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35997458635844014.post-32046813103031627622014-10-14T18:52:00.000-04:002014-10-14T18:58:18.845-04:00Stand Up To Cancer Canada Dream TeamsThis tweet was posted today:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Exciting news: <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/CanadaDreamTeams?src=hash">#CanadaDreamTeams</a>! Thx <a href="https://twitter.com/CBCF_">@CBCF_</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/cibc">@cibc</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/CSCC?src=hash">#CSCC</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/GenomeCanada">@GenomeCanada</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/CIHR_IRSC">@CIHR_IRSC</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/OICR_news">@OICR_news</a> <a href="http://t.co/FNsluN1xmo">http://t.co/FNsluN1xmo</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/su2c_ca">@su2c_ca</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/cancerSC?src=hash">#cancerSC</a></p>— Jim Till (@jimtill) <a href="https://twitter.com/jimtill/status/522109568495939584">October 14, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The link embedded in the tweet takes one to a press release entitled:
"SU2C Canada Announces Up To $22.6 Million CAD Available for Stand Up To Cancer Canada Dream Teams". Two excerpts:
<blockquote>Two Dream Team funding opportunities are available, one for translational research focused on breast cancer and the other on cancer stem cells:</blockquote>
<blockquote>.......</blockquote>
<blockquote>The Stand Up To Cancer Canada Cancer Stem Cell Dream Team will provide approximately $10.6 million CAD over a four-year term, with funds from the CSCC (through Genome Canada and CIHR) and SU2C Canada. The Call for Ideas seeks to support a single, integrated, and cohesive pan-Canadian team bringing together key stakeholders – researchers, clinicians, industry, nongovernmental organizations, and funders – with the goal of improving the outcomes of hard-to-treat cancers by focusing on the role of cancer stem cells and stem cell programs on resistance and treatment failure in cancer. The team will employ new tools of modern biology, with an emphasis on genomics.</blockquote>
<blockquote>• Additionally, the two qualifying Dream Teams may each receive supplementary funds up to $3 million over four years from OICR, to support clinical trial activities in the province of Ontario.</blockquote>
Jim Tillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02092503335133096747noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35997458635844014.post-6481748072109602342014-09-05T18:59:00.000-04:002014-09-05T19:04:25.617-04:00Tweets about cancer stem cells<p>I've had a long-term interest in research on cancer in general, and <a title="cancer stem cells" href="http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/66/19/9339.full" target="_blank">cancer stem cells</a> (CSCs) in particular. See, for example, "A stem cell model of human tumor growth: implications for tumor cell clonogenic assays", <em>J Natl Cancer Inst</em>. 1983 Jan;70(1):9-16 [<a title="PubMed" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6571928" target="_blank">PubMed</a>]. I've been trying to keep up with the current literature about CSCs, and have found the task to be a challenging one.</p>
<p>Effective ways to filter the voluminous academic literature are badly needed. Social media have provided a possible route to this goal. I've been exploring a few such media, and especially <a title="Twitter" href="https://twitter.com/" target="_blank">Twitter</a>.</p>
<p>I've been a <a title="member of Twitter" href="https://twitter.com/jimtill" target="_blank">member of Twitter</a> since December 2008. I've posted over 3000 tweets since then. Almost all of them have been about either CSCs or <a title="open access" href="http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/brief.htm" target="_blank">open access</a> (OA).</p>
<p>My tweets about CSCs have included the <a title="hashtag" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashtag" target="_blank">hashtag</a> #cancerSC. I usually post about 15-25 tweets with this hashtag per month. Previous tweets can be accessed by <a title="searching within Twitter" href="https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q=%23cancerSC&src=typd" target="_blank">searching within Twitter</a> for the #cancerSC hashtag. A <a title="Google search" href="https://www.google.ca/search?q=%23cancerSC" target="_blank">Google search</a> for the same hashtag will provide access to the same archive of tweets.</p>
<p>As sources of information for recent news and publications about CSCs, I've used the following:</p>
<p>a) <a title="Google Alerts" href="https://www.google.com/alerts" target="_blank">Google Alerts</a>, to monitor the web for interesting new content about the keywords "cancer stem".</p>
<p>b) <a title="PubMed" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/" target="_blank">PubMed</a> searches for "cancer stem", with the results sent via <a title="PubMed RSS" href="http://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/disted/pubmedtutorial/040_060.html" target="_blank">PubMed RSS</a> to the RSS reader <a title="Feedly" href="http://feedly.com/index.html" target="_blank">Feedly</a>. My main focus is on articles published within the last month. PubMed is my main source of relevant information.</p>
<p>c) Other contributors to Twitter, such as <a title="@cancerscnews" href="https://twitter.com/cancerscnews" target="_blank">@cancerscnews</a>.</p>
<p>These sources (especially PubMed) provide a cornucopia of information about what's new in stem cell research and development. My major challenge has been an editorial one: which aspects of all this information should be selected and tweeted about?</p>
<p><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Screening Step 1</span>: A useful screening tool has been the <a title="Altmetric Bookmarklet" href="http://www.altmetric.com/bookmarklet.php" target="_blank">Altmetric Bookmarklet</a>. At present, this Bookmarklet only works on <a title="PubMed" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed" target="_blank">PubMed</a>, the <a title="arXiv" href="http://arxiv.org/" target="_blank">arXiv</a> repository, or pages containing a <a title="digital object identifier" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier" target="_blank">digital object identifier</a> (DOI).</p>
<p>Using the bookmarklet, I screen the results sent by the PubMed RSS, and select for further examination those articles that have non-zero article level metrics. Whether or not <a title="Altmetric" href="http://www.altmetric.com/" target="_blank">Altmetric</a> has picked up sharing activity around an article, I proceed to Screening Step 2. (For those not familiar with <a title="Altmetric.com" href="http://www.altmetric.com/about.php" target="_blank">Altmetric.com</a>, it's a start-up that attempts to assess <a title="article level metrics" href="http://www.altmetric.com/article-level-metrics.php" target="_blank">article level metrics</a> or <a title="altmetrics" href="http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/" target="_blank">altmetrics</a>).</p>
<p><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Screening Step 2</span>: The next screening step is to put the title of each article into <a title="Topsy" href="http://topsy.com/" target="_blank">Topsy</a>, which allows one to search for tweets that have included this title. If a search using Topsy reveals at least a two tweets about the article, I go the 3rd Screening Step. Sometimes, secondary sources (such as <a title="7thSpace Interactive" href="http://7thspace.com/" target="_blank">7thSpace Interactive</a>) are identified in multiple tweets. If so, I again go to Screening Step 3.</p>
<p><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Screening Step 3</span>: I'm a supporter of the <a title="Open Access" href="http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/brief.htm" target="_blank">Open Access</a> movement. So, I next check whether or not the article is freely accessible (no paywalls). If there are no paywalls, I prepare a tweet about the article. If I do run into a paywall, I only prepare a tweet if either the Altmetric, or the results from Topsy, or my own reading of the article, yields a very positive impression. I indicate in the tweet that the article is "not OA".</p>
<p>The targeted viewers for my tweets are anyone interested in current research on CSCs. The tweets are not targeted only at those active in research on CSCs. Hence the somewhat higher priority given to articles that have no paywalls.</p>
<p>Of course. there's no way to avoid some subjectivity in an editorial process of this kind. So, I occasionally ignore the results of the screening process and tweet about articles that I especially liked. And, no doubt, some interesting articles will be missed. The greater the sensitivity and specificity of the screening process, the more likely it is that all of the relevant articles will be found and the irrelevant articles rejected.</p>
<p>For an example of a positive view about tweets, see: <a title="Can Tweets Predict Citations? Metrics of Social Impact Based on Twitter and Correlation with Traditional Metrics of Scientific Impact" href="http://www.jmir.org/2011/4/e123/" target="_blank">Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact</a> by <a title="Gunther Eysenbach" href="https://twitter.com/eysenbach" target="_blank"><strong>Gunther Eysenbach</strong></a> (2011).</p>
<p>Examples of positive views about altmetrics are: <a title="Altmetrics in the Wild: Using Social Media to Explore Scholarly Impact" href="http://arxiv.org/html/1203.4745" target="_blank">Altmetrics in the Wild: Using Social Media to Explore Scholarly Impact</a> by <a title="Jason Priem" href="https://twitter.com/jasonpriem" target="_blank"><strong>Jason Priem</strong></a>, <a title="Heather Piwowar" href="https://twitter.com/researchremix" target="_blank"><strong>Heather Piwowar</strong></a> & <a title="Bradley Hemminger" href="http://ils.unc.edu/bmh/" target="_blank"><strong>Bradley Hemminger</strong></a> (2012); <a title="Value all research products" href="http://researchremix.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/full-text-value-all-research-products/" target="_blank">Value all research products</a> by <a title="Heather Piwowar" href="https://twitter.com/researchremix" target="_blank"><strong>Heather Piwowar</strong></a> (2013).</p>
<p>I'm aware of criticisms of a screening process which relies heavily on altmetrics and tweets. For examples of such criticisms, see: <a title="Twitter buzz about papers does not mean citations later" href="http://www.nature.com/news/twitter-buzz-about-papers-does-not-mean-citations-later-1.14354" target="_blank">Twitter buzz about papers does not mean citations later</a> by <a title="Richard Van Noorden" href="https://twitter.com/Richvn" target="_blank"><strong>Richard Van Noorden</strong></a> (2013); <a title="Why you should ignore altmetrics and other bibliometric nightmares" href="http://www.dcscience.net/?p=6369" target="_blank">Why you should ignore altmetrics and other bibliometric nightmares</a> by <a title="David Colquhoun" href="https://twitter.com/@david_colquhoun" target="_blank"><strong>David Colquhoun</strong></a> & <a title="Andrew Plested" href="http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/files/2014/05/andrew_plested.jpg" target="_blank"><strong>Andrew Plested</strong></a> (2014); <a title="Article-level metrics: an ill-conceived and meretricious idea" href="http://scholarlyoa.com/2013/08/01/article-level-metrics/" target="_blank">Article-level metrics: An ill-conceived and meretricious idea</a> by <a title="Jeffrey Beall" href="https://twitter.com/jeffrey_beall" target="_blank"><strong>Jeffrey Beall</strong></a> (2013).</p>
<p>My own view is that tweets and altmetrics merit further exploration, as indicators of "attention". Of course, one needs to watch out for "gaming" (see: <a title="Gaming altmetrics" href="http://www.altmetric.com/blog/gaming-altmetrics/" target="_blank">Gaming altmetrics</a>). However, my own examination of tweets and altmetrics related to CSCs has yielded no unequivocal evidence of "gaming". Instead, the tweets I've seen (<a title="the coverage of all the altmetrics except for Twitter seems to be low" href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0064841" target="_blank">the coverage of all the altmetrics except for Twitter seems to be low</a>) appear to be the result of authentic-looking attention from real people.</p>
<p style="text-align: left;">I do not believe that Impact Factors should be regarded as the unquestioned gold standard for indicators used to assess impact (see, for example, <a title="Impact Factors: A Broken System" href="http://datapub.cdlib.org/2013/05/22/impact-factors/" target="_blank">Impact Factors: A Broken System</a> by <a title="<strong>Carly Strasser</strong>" href="https://twitter.com/carlystrasser" target="_blank">Carly Strasser</a>, 2013). Of course, the gold standard for oneself is one's own opinion upon reading a publication. But, <a title="no one can read everything" href="http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/" target="_blank">no one can read everything</a>.</p>
<p>An article, <a title="How to tame the flood of literature" href="http://www.nature.com/news/how-to-tame-the-flood-of-literature-1.15806" target="_blank">How to tame the flood of literature</a> by <a title="Elizabeth Gibney" href="https://twitter.com/LizzieGibney" target="_blank"><strong>Elizabeth Gibney</strong></a> in <em>Nature</em> (03 September 2014), provides comments about emerging literature-recommendation engines. I haven't yet used any of these, but they clearly merit attention.</p>
<p>I'd be very grateful for any suggestions about ways to improve the efficiency, sensitivity and specificity of a screening process of the kind outlined in this post.</p>
Jim Tillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02092503335133096747noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35997458635844014.post-33162769526486382592013-06-19T16:08:00.000-04:002013-06-19T16:10:31.789-04:00International team submits IND applicationOn 18 June 2013, there was an <a title="announcement" href="http://www.uhn.ca/corporate/News/Pages/takmak_newcancerdrug.aspx" target="_blank">announcement</a> at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto. There was also a post on the California stem cell agency blog entitled: <a title="Clinical trial to thwart cancer stem cells may begin soon" href="http://cirmresearch.blogspot.ca/2013/06/clinical-trial-to-thwart-cancer-stem.html" target="_blank">Clinical trial to thwart cancer stem cells may begin soon</a>. An excerpt from the post:
<blockquote>The Prince Margaret Center announced the FDA filing, called an Investigational New Drug application (IND), at an event in Toronto recognizing the private donors. A press release about the announcement was picked up at this <a title="biotech news site" href="http://www.bioportfolio.com/news/article/1526939/Long-term-donor-support-helps-fund-cancer-breakthrough.html" target="_blank">biotech news site</a>.</blockquote>
The Principal Investigators present for the announcement were <a title="Dr. Tak Mak" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tak_Wah_Mak" target="_blank">Dr. Tak Mak</a> of the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and <a title="Dr. Dennis Slamon" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Slamon" target="_blank">Dr. Dennis Slamon</a> of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). What they have done is summarized in another excerpt from the <a title="blog post" href="http://cirmresearch.blogspot.ca/2013/06/clinical-trial-to-thwart-cancer-stem.html" target="_blank">blog post</a>:
<blockquote>By working first to understand the various proteins that drive cells to divide, particularly in cancer, they were able to pinpoint an enzyme, that if blocked, could be the key to keeping cancer in check. They then discovered that this enzyme, called PLK4, can be derailed by a new drug they developed. In the lab, it has been shown to inhibit the growth of breast, ovarian, colorectal, lung, pancreatic and prostate cancer, as well as melanoma.</blockquote>
<p>Information about the human PLK4 protein is available <a title="PLK4" href="http://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/O00444" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>
<span style="text-decoration: underline;">Some background</span>: In June 2008, it was <a title="announced" href="http://www.cancerstemcellconsortium.com/index.php?page=partnerships" target="_blank">announced</a> that a partnership had been formed between Canada’s <a title="Cancer Stem Cell Consortium" href="http://www.cancerstemcellconsortium.com/index.php?page=home" target="_blank">Cancer Stem Cell Consortium</a> (CSCC) and the <a title="California Institute for Regenerative Medicine" href="http://www.cirm.ca.gov/" target="_blank">California Institute for Regenerative Medicine</a> (CIRM) for international collaboration to advance cancer stem cell research. An excerpt from the CSCC's announcement:
<blockquote>It is proposed that one of the first initiatives to be launched by the CSCC will be a collaboration between Canadian and Californian scientists through CIRM's upcoming Disease Team Research Awards Competition, which will support multi-disciplinary teams of scientists in pursuit of therapies for specific diseases.The goal is to fund teams that will develop therapy or diagnostics for a particular disease or serious injury.Successful proposals will likely include a description of a path to an Investigational New Drug filing at the end of the four-to-five year grant.</blockquote>
<p>Note the intent to file an IND by the end of the term of the grant.</p>
The results of the Disease Team Research Awards Competition were <a title="announced" href="http://www.cirm.ca.gov/about-cirm/newsroom/press-releases/10282009/cirm-uk-and-canada-award-more-250-million-accelerate" target="_blank">announced</a> on October 28, 2009. The award to Drs. Slamon and Mak is Grant number DR1-01477. See: <a title="Therapeutic Opportunities to Target Tumor Initiating Cells in Solid Tumors" href="http://www.cirm.ca.gov/our-funding/awards/therapeutic-opportunities-target-tumor-initiating-cells-solid-tumors" target="_blank">Therapeutic Opportunities to Target Tumor Initiating Cells in Solid Tumors</a>. As was stated in a page about <a title="Cancer Stem Cells" href="http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/40538.html" target="_blank">Cancer Stem Cells</a> on the website of the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR), this award was to one of two multi-disciplinary research teams co-led by Canadian and Californian scientists. The other team is co-led by <a title="Dr. John Dick" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dick_%28scientist%29" target="_blank">Dr. John Dick</a> of the University Health Network and <a title="Dr. Dennis Carson" href="http://new-molpath.ucsd.edu/faculty/Carson.shtml" target="_blank">Dr. Dennis Carson</a> of the University of California, San Diego.
My blog post (October 29, 2009) about the awards is entitled: <a title="Disease Team awards announced" href="http://cancerstemcellnews.blogspot.ca/2009/10/disease-team-awards-announced.html" target="_blank">Disease Team awards announced</a>. The post ends with this <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Disclosure</span>:
<blockquote>I'm a member of the Board of the CSCC, but also a staff member (emeritus) at the University Health Network. So, I was in conflict of interest, and was absent during all of the discussions, by the CSCC Board, about which Canadian applications should be considered for the Disease Team awards.</blockquote>Jim Tillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02092503335133096747noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35997458635844014.post-33757207251988605012013-03-27T18:52:00.003-04:002013-03-27T18:58:51.029-04:00More about Funding for Personalized Medicine Research <p>A post entitled <a title="Funding for Personalized Medicine Research" href="http://cancerstemcellnews.blogspot.ca/2012/01/funding-for-personalized-medicine.html" target="_blank">Funding for Personalized Medicine Research</a>, dated January 31, 2012, provided information about the participation of the <a title="Cancer Stem Cell Consortium" href="http://www.cancerstemcellconsortium.ca/" target="_blank">Cancer Stem Cell Consortium</a> (CSCC) in the <a title="Large-Scale Applied Research Project Competition" href="http://www.genomecanada.ca/en/portfolio/research/2012-competition.aspx" target="_blank">Large-Scale Applied Research Project Competition</a> of <a title="Genome Canada" href="http://www.genomecanada.ca/" target="_blank">Genome Canada</a>, in collaboration with the first phase of the <a title="Personalized Medicine Signature Initiative" href="http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/44601.html" target="_blank">Personalized Medicine Signature Initiative</a> of the <a title="Canadian Institutes of Health Research" href="http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/" target="_blank">Canadian Institutes of Health Research</a> (CIHR).</p>
<p>On March 26, 2013, it was <a title="announced" href="http://www.genomecanada.ca/en/about/news.aspx?i=427" target="_blank">announced</a> that 17 projects will be supported. A list of these project is available (<a title="PDF" href="http://www.genomecanada.ca/data/Nouvelles/Fichiers/en/427_1_Backgrounder%20-%20english.pdf" target="_blank">PDF</a>). One of the 17 projects is entitled "<em>Innovative chemogenomic tools to improve outcome in acute myeloid leukemia</em>". The Project leader is <a title="Guy Sauvageau" href="http://www.iric.ca/en/research/principal-investigators/guy-sauvageau/" target="_blank">Guy Sauvageau</a> of the Institute for Research in Immunology and Cancer (IRIC) at the Université de Montréal. The Project co-leader is <a title="Josée Hébert" href="http://recherche.maisonneuve-rosemont.org/en-ca/research/our-research-investigators/hebert-josee.html" target="_blank">Josée Hébert</a> of the Centre de Recherche Hôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont, Montréal. One of the aims of this project is to develop new models for tracking cancer stem cells that are left behind after a patient is treated.</p>Jim Tillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02092503335133096747noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35997458635844014.post-54448523318037572082012-07-17T19:13:00.000-04:002012-07-18T10:22:18.919-04:00Companies selectively targeting cancer stem cellsToday, I posted this to <a title="Twitter" href="https://twitter.com/" target="_blank">Twitter</a>:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet tw-align-left">3 Innovative Cancer Treatments...But Which Is The Best Bet? <a title="http://seekingalpha.com/a/fjed" href="http://t.co/Qal1yqbx" target="_blank">seekingalpha.com/a/fjed</a> $GSK $IMUC $VSTM <a href="https://twitter.com/search/%2523cancerSC" target="_blank">#cancerSC</a> via @<a href="https://twitter.com/seekingalpha" target="_blank">seekingalpha</a>
— Jim Till (@jimtill) <a href="https://twitter.com/jimtill/status/225300504341774336" target="_blank" data-datetime="2012-07-17T18:46:40+00:00">July 17, 2012</a></blockquote>
The <a title="article" href="http://t.co/Qal1yqbx" target="_blank">article</a> is about three companies that are working on treatments designed to target cancer stem cells (CSCs). The companies are <a title="OncoMed" href="http://www.oncomed.com/" target="_blank"><strong>OncoMed</strong></a>, <a title="Verastem" href="http://www.verastem.com/" target="_blank"><strong>Verastem</strong></a> and <a title="ImmunoCellular Therapeutics" href="http://www.imuc.com/http://" target="_blank"><strong>ImmunoCellular Therapeutics</strong></a>.
The <a title="article" href="http://seekingalpha.com/article/724981-3-innovative-cancer-treatments-but-which-is-the-best-bet" target="_blank">article</a> is interesting.Jim Tillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02092503335133096747noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35997458635844014.post-74000721905620886802012-01-31T12:11:00.000-05:002013-03-27T18:51:08.310-04:00Funding for Personalized Medicine ResearchThe <a title="Cancer Stem Cell Consortium" href="http://www.cancerstemcellconsortium.ca/" target="_blank">Cancer Stem Cell Consortium</a> (CSCC) is a partner in the 2012 <a title="Large-Scale Applied Research Project Competition" href="http://www.genomecanada.ca/en/portfolio/research/2012-competition.aspx" target="_blank">Large-Scale Applied Research Project Competition</a> of <a title="Genome Canada" href="http://www.genomecanada.ca/" target="_blank">Genome Canada</a>, in collaboration with the first phase of the <a title="Personalized Medicine Signature Initiative" href="http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/44601.html" target="_blank">Personalized Medicine Signature Initiative</a> of the <a title="Canadian Institutes of Health Research" href="http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/" target="_blank">Canadian Institutes of Health Research</a> (CIHR). Genome Canada is leading the research competition. An excerpt from <a title="Fact Sheet: The Potential of Personalized Medicine" href="http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/44827.html" target="_blank">Fact Sheet: The Potential of Personalized Medicine</a>:<br /><blockquote>Funding of $67.5M will come from Genome Canada ($40 million), CIHR ($22.5 million) and the Cancer Stem Cell Consortium ($5 million). Projects will be funded for a maximum of four years. To qualify for funding, researchers must obtain matching funding that at is least equal to that provided through the competition, which will bring the total investment in this research area to close to $140 million. Matching funding is typically derived from provincial, academic, private sector or international sources.</blockquote><br />Details about the competition are available <a title="2012 Large-Scale Applied Research Project Competition " href="http://www.genomecanada.ca/en/portfolio/research/2012-competition.aspx" target="_blank">here</a>.<br /><br />Press releases, dated January 31, 2012, about the federal government's support for personalized medicine, are available <a title="Press release via Genome Canada" href="http://www.genomecanada.ca/en/portfolio/research/2012-competition.aspx" target="_blank">here</a> and <a title="Press release via CIHR" href="http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/44825.html" target="_blank">here</a>.Jim Tillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02092503335133096747noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35997458635844014.post-32526862983023340572011-09-14T15:09:00.002-04:002011-09-14T15:49:04.026-04:00Cancer Stem Cell Chronicle<p>About 3 months ago, as an experiment, I launched the <a title="Cancer Stem Cell Chronicle" href="http://paper.li/jimtill/1309216937" target="_blank">Cancer Stem Cell Chronicle</a>, an online daily newspaper that's based on excerpts from 3 streams of content: 1) Twitter content tagged <a title="#cancerSC" href="https://twitter.com/#!/search?q=%23cancerSC" target="_blank">#cancerSC</a>, 2) Twitter content that includes the keywords <a title=""cancer stem"" href="https://twitter.com/#!/search/%22cancer%20stem%22" target="_blank">"cancer stem"</a>, and, 3) content derived from a <a title="PubMed RSS feed" href="http://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/erss.cgi?rss_guid=1FkmQAO_DIZZGVdnEyk3hr1SmD8o3bfEiF7NHDoDDUBfO4bMAM" target="_blank">PubMed RSS feed</a> for the search term "cancer stem". </p><p>The experiment looks promising. The CSC Chronicle is beginning to provide a convenient way to monitor recent research news about cancer stem cells. Archives are available. The section headings in the CSC Chronicle aren't very meaningful, and should be ignored. </p><p>The CSC Chronicle is hosted by <a title="Paper.li" href="http://paper.li/" target="_blank">Paper.li</a>.</p>Jim Tillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02092503335133096747noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35997458635844014.post-21591746505674414302011-01-06T11:29:00.003-05:002011-01-06T11:42:48.206-05:00A difference between normal and cancer SC biology in the nervous system<a title="Neural Tumor-Initiating Cells Have Distinct Telomere Maintenance and Can be Safely Targeted for Telomerase Inhibition" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-2075" target="_blank">Neural Tumor-Initiating Cells Have Distinct Telomere Maintenance and Can be Safely Targeted for Telomerase Inhibition</a> by Pedro Castelo-Branco and 12 co-authors, including <a title="Uri Tabori" href="http://www.sickkids.ca/aboutsickkids/directory/people/t/uri-tabori.html" target="_blank">Uri Tabori</a>, <em>Clin Cancer Res</em> 2011(Jan 1); 17(1): 111-121 [<a title="Full text" href="http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/17/1/111.full" target="_blank">Full text</a>]. Translational Relevance:<br /><blockquote>Pediatric neural tumors (brain tumors and neuroblastoma) are the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in childhood cancer. This is due to their ability to recur after minimal disease is achieved. Telomerase is active in most malignant pediatric neural tumors. Therefore, telomerase inhibition may offer an effective treatment option for such patients. Because normal stem cells may require telomerase for continuous self-renewal, this therapy may have devastating effects on normal nervous system development and maintenance.</blockquote><blockquote>This study reveals that telomerase activation exists only in the tumor-initiating cancer subpopulation and is critical to sustain their survival and self-renewal potential. Importantly, normal neural or neural crest stem cells do not require telomerase for their self-renewal. Furthermore, as opposed to conventional chemoradiation therapies, telomerase inhibition results in irreversible loss of self-renewal capacity of tumor initiating cells <em>in vitro</em> and <em>in vivo</em>.</blockquote><blockquote>These observations uncover a difference between normal and cancer stem cell biology in the nervous system and suggest that telomerase inhibition may offer a specific and safe therapeutic approach for these devastating tumors.</blockquote>For a commentary on this article, see: <a title="Anita B Hjelmeland" href="http://www.lerner.ccf.org/stemcellbio/people.php?id=2244" target="_blank">Anita B Hjelmeland</a> and <a title="Jeremy N Rich" href="http://www.lerner.ccf.org/stemcellbio/rich/" target="_blank">Jeremy N Rich</a>, <em>Clin Cancer Res</em> 2011(Jan 1); 17(1): 3-5 (unlike the article, the commentary is not publicly accessible). Abstract: <blockquote>Telomerase is an important mechanism by which cancers escape replicative senescence. In neural tumors, cancer stem cells express telomerase, suggesting that this may explain their preferential tumorigenesis. Oligonucleotide telomerase targeting selectively disrupts cancer stem cell growth through the induction of differentiation, adding to the armamentarium of anticancer stem cell therapies.</blockquote>Jim Tillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02092503335133096747noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35997458635844014.post-41809612333696703412010-12-19T16:41:00.001-05:002010-12-19T16:47:38.130-05:00Two new initiatives from the CSCCThe Cancer Stem Cell Consortium (CSCC) has announced the launch of two new initiatives for 2011-2012. Information about these initiatives is available via the websites of the <a title="CSCC" href="http://www.cancerstemcellconsortium.com/index.php?page=research-and-initiatives" target="_blank">CSCC</a> and <a title="Genome Canada" href="http://www.genomecanada.ca/en/about/news.aspx?i=372" target="_blank">Genome Canada</a>.<br /><br />The two initiatives are:<br /><br />1. C4Resource: The Canada-California Collaborative Cancer Stem Cell Resource and Technology Platform Network or C4Resource, which would coordinate cancer stem cell research resources and platform technologies more efficiently and effectively to advance research and discovery and accelerate clinical translation of new findings; and,<br /><br />2. Partnership with CIRM: A second funding partnership with the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) through the CIRM's Disease Team Therapy Development Research Awards.<br /><br />Information about the CIRM Disease Team Therapy Development Research Award RFA is available at:<a title="http://www.cirm.ca.gov/RFA_10-05" href="http://www.cirm.ca.gov/RFA_10-05" target="_blank"> http://www.cirm.ca.gov/RFA_10-05</a>Jim Tillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02092503335133096747noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35997458635844014.post-56266863022285766222010-10-07T19:19:00.000-04:002010-10-07T19:25:19.458-04:00From the EditorI'll be taking some time away from blogging for the remainder of 2010. My tentative plan is to return with a different approach. For example, it may rely much less on blog posts, and more on short news items that can be found via a search of the real-time feed aggregator FriendFeed (FF) for the hashtag <a title="#cancerSC" href="http://friendfeed.com/search?q=%23cancerSC" target="_blank">#cancerSC</a>. An advantage of FF is that it permits news items and comments to be added by anyone who joins FriendFeed, and thus fosters a more community-oriented approach.Jim Tillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02092503335133096747noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35997458635844014.post-21784517841745575242010-10-02T09:44:00.004-04:002010-10-02T09:56:33.796-04:00Trials to target CSCs<a title="U-M stem cell trial shows promise against breast cancer" href="http://www.detnews.com/article/20100930/METRO/9300421/U-M-stem-cell-trial-shows-promise-against-breast-cancer" target="_blank">U-M stem cell trial shows promise against breast cancer</a> by Kim Kozlowski, <em>The Detroit News</em>, September 30, 2010. Excerpt: <blockquote>The research will be highlighted next week in Detroit during the World Stem Cell Summit, a gathering of 1,200 prominent stem cell scientists, industry leaders and advocates from 30 countries.</blockquote>Jim Tillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02092503335133096747noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35997458635844014.post-3017668017467353512010-10-02T08:55:00.002-04:002010-10-02T09:12:35.233-04:00OA Video Protocol from Matsui Lab<a title="Isolation of Stem Cells from Human Pancreatic Cancer Xenografts" href="http://www.jove.com/index/details.stp?id=2169" target="_blank">Isolation of Stem Cells from Human Pancreatic Cancer Xenografts</a> by Zeshaan Rasheed, Qiuju Wang, William Matsui, <span style="font-style: italic;">J Vis Exp</span> 2010(Sep 26);(43). pii: 2169. OA Video Protocol.Jim Tillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02092503335133096747noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35997458635844014.post-90571135906266980632010-09-24T19:46:00.002-04:002010-09-24T19:49:14.610-04:00Insights into the stem cells of CML<a title="Insights into the stem cells of chronic myeloid leukemia" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/leu.2010.159" target="_blank">Insights into the stem cells of chronic myeloid leukemia</a> by I Sloma, X Jiang, A C Eaves and C J Eaves, <em>Leukemia</em> 2010(Sep 23). [Epub ahead of print][<a title="PubMed citation" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20861912" target="_blank">PubMed citation</a>]. Abstract: <blockquote>Chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) has long served as a paradigm for generating new insights into the cellular origin, pathogenesis and improved approaches to treating many types of human cancer. Early studies of the cellular phenotypes and genotypes represented in leukemic populations obtained from CML patients established the concept of an evolving clonal disorder originating in and initially sustained by a rare, multipotent, self-maintaining hematopoietic stem cell (HSC). More recent investigations continue to support this model, while also revealing new insights into the cellular and molecular mechanisms that explain how knowledge of CML stem cells and their early differentiating progeny can predict the differing and variable features of chronic phase and blast crisis. In particular, these emphasize the need for new agents that effectively and specifically target CML stem cells to produce non-toxic, but curative therapies that do not require lifelong treatments.</blockquote>Jim Tillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02092503335133096747noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35997458635844014.post-46174239818273388132010-09-23T19:09:00.002-04:002010-09-23T19:13:06.028-04:00Critical molecular pathways in CSCs of CML<a title="Critical molecular pathways in cancer stem cells of chronic myeloid leukemia" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/leu.2010.143" target="_blank">Critical molecular pathways in cancer stem cells of chronic myeloid leukemia</a> by Y Chen, C Peng, C Sullivan, D Li and S Li, <em>Leukemia</em> 2010(Sep); 24(9): 1545-54. Epub 2010 Jun 24. [<a title="Connotea bookmark" href="http://www.connotea.org/article/c77d64ab91fb3bd999507bdcd32e8be6" target="_blank">Connotea bookmark</a>][<a title="PubMed citation" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20574455" target="_blank">PubMed citation</a>][<a title="Full text" href="http://www.nature.com/leu/journal/v24/n9/full/leu2010143a.html" target="_blank">Full text</a>]. The abstract of this OA review: <blockquote>Inhibition of BCR-ABL with kinase inhibitors in the treatment of Philadelphia-positive (Ph(+)) chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) is highly effective in controlling but not curing the disease. This is largely due to the inability of these kinase inhibitors to kill leukemia stem cells (LSCs) responsible for disease relapse. This stem cell resistance is not associated with the BCR-ABL kinase domain mutations resistant to kinase inhibitors. Development of curative therapies for CML requires the identification of crucial molecular pathways responsible for the survival and self-renewal of LSCs. In this review, we will discuss our current understanding of these crucial molecular pathways in LSCs and the available therapeutic strategies for targeting these stem cells in CML.</blockquote>Jim Tillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02092503335133096747noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35997458635844014.post-36754498372577597372010-09-20T19:16:00.005-04:002010-09-20T19:31:14.850-04:00Must the last CML cell be killed?<a title="Do we have to kill the last CML cell?" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/leu.2010.197" target="_blank">Do we have to kill the last CML cell?</a> DM Ross, TP Hughes and JV Melo, <em>Leukemia</em> 2010(Sep 16) [Epub ahead of print][<a title="FriendFeed entry" href="http://ff.im/qQHOD" target="_blank">FriendFeed entry</a>][<a title="PubMed citation" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20844563" target="_blank">PubMed citation</a>][<a title="Full text" href="http://www.nature.com/leu/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/leu2010197a.html" target="_blank">Full text</a>]. The abstract of this OA review:<br /><blockquote>Previous experience in the treatment of chronic myeloid leukaemic (CML) has shown that the achievement of clinical, morphological and cytogenetic remission does not indicate eradication of the disease. A complete molecular response (CMR; no detectable BCR-ABL mRNA) represents a deeper level of response, but even CMR is not a guarantee of elimination of the leukaemic, because the significance of CMR is determined by the detection limit of the assay that is used. Two studies of imatinib cessation in CMR are underway, cumulatively involving over 100 patients. The current estimated rate of stable CMR after stopping imatinib is approximately 40%, but the duration of follow-up is relatively short. The factors that determine relapse risk are yet to be identified. The intrinsic capacity of any residual leukaemic cells to proliferate following the withdrawal of treatment may be important, but there may also be a role for immunological suppression of the leukaemic clone. No currently available test can formally prove that the leukaemic clone is eradicated. Here we discuss the sensitive measurement of minimal residual disease, and speculate on the biology of BCR-ABL-positive cells that may persist after effective therapy of CML.</blockquote>Jim Tillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02092503335133096747noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35997458635844014.post-64880579543153493302010-09-08T19:31:00.004-04:002010-09-08T19:39:19.455-04:00On the low frequency of tumor-initiating cells<a title="Tumor-Initiating Cells Are Rare in Many Human Tumors" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2010.08.009" target="_blank">Tumor-Initiating Cells Are Rare in Many Human Tumors</a> by Kota Ishizawa and 16 co-authors, including <a title="Benjamin G Neel" href="http://www.uhnresearch.ca/researchers/profile.php?lookup=14776" target="_blank">Benjamin G Neel</a> and <a title="William Matsui" href="http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/kimmel_cancer_center/research_clinical_trials/research/research_labs/matsui_lab/members.html" target="_blank">William Matsui</a>, <em>Cell Stem Cell</em> 2010(Sep 3); 7(3): 279-282. [<a title="FriendFeed entry" href="http://ff.im/q8K0h" target="_blank">FriendFeed entry</a>][<a title="PubMed citation" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20804964" target="_blank">PubMed citation</a>]. Abstract: <blockquote>Tumor-initiating cells (TICs) are defined by their ability to form tumors after xenotransplantation in immunodeficient mice and appear to be relatively rare in most human cancers. Recent data in melanoma indicate that the frequency of TICs increases dramatically via more permissive xenotransplantation conditions, raising the possibility that the true frequency of TICs has been greatly underestimated in most human tumors. We compared the growth of human pancreatic, non-small cell lung, and head and neck carcinomas in NOD/SCID and NSG mice. Although TIC frequency was detected up to 10-fold higher in NSG mice, it remained low (<1 in 2500 cells) in all cases. Moreover, aldehyde dehydrogenase-positive (ALDH(+)) and CD44(+)CD24(+) cells, phenotypically distinct cells enriched in TICs, were equally tumorigenic in NOD/SCID and NSG mice. Our findings demonstrate that TICs are rare in these cancers and that the identification of TICs and their frequency in other human malignancies should be validated via primary tumors and highly permissive xenotransplantation conditions.</blockquote>Jim Tillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02092503335133096747noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35997458635844014.post-1219485885163828392010-09-04T20:04:00.004-04:002010-09-04T20:23:39.682-04:00Some breast cancer tumors may not originate from stem cells?<a title="Surprise breast cancer source" href="http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/57670/" target="_blank">Surprise breast cancer source</a> by Jennifer Welsh,<em>TheScientist.com</em>, September 2, 2010. First paragraph: <blockquote>Some breast cancer tumors may not originate from stem cells as previously believed, according to a study published in the September 3rd issue of Cell Stem Cell. The discovery is an important step in the development of treatments for these cancers.</blockquote>This news story is based on the publication: <a title="BRCA1 Basal-like Breast Cancers Originate from Luminal Epithelial Progenitors and Not from Basal Stem Cells" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2010.07.010" target="_blank">BRCA1 Basal-like Breast Cancers Originate from Luminal Epithelial Progenitors and Not from Basal Stem Cells</a> by Gemma Molyneux and 11 co-authors, including <a title="Matthew J Smalley" href="http://www.icr.ac.uk/research/research_profiles/4188.shtml" target="_blank">Matthew J Smalley</a>, <em>Cell Stem Cell</em> 2010(Sep 3); 7(3): 403-417. OA article [<a title="Full text" href="http://www.cell.com/cell-stem-cell/fulltext/S1934-5909%2810%2900346-2" target="_blank">Full text]</a> [<a title="PubMed citation" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20804975" target="_blank">PubMed citation</a>].<br /><br />A commentary: <a title="Cancer Cell of Origin: Spotlight on Luminal Progenitors" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2010.08.008" target="_blank">Cancer Cell of Origin: Spotlight on Luminal Progenitors</a> by Christine L Chaffer and <a title="Robert A Weinberg" href="http://www.wi.mit.edu/research/faculty/weinberg.html" target="_blank">Robert A Weinberg</a>, <em>Cell Stem Cell</em> 2010(Sep 3); 7(3): 271-272. [<a title="PubMed citation" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20804960" target="_blank">PubMed citation</a>].Jim Tillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02092503335133096747noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35997458635844014.post-73724444583058185172010-09-04T19:03:00.002-04:002010-09-04T19:08:08.726-04:00Isolation and killing of candidate CML stem cells by antibody targeting<a title="Isolation and killing of candidate chronic myeloid leukemia stem cells by antibody targeting of IL-1 receptor accessory protein" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1004408107" target="_blank">Isolation and killing of candidate chronic myeloid leukemia stem cells by antibody targeting of IL-1 receptor accessory protein</a> by Marcus Järås and 10 co-authors, including Thoas Fioretos, <em>Proc Natl Acad Sci USA</em> 2010(Aug 30). OA article. [Epub ahead of print][<a title="PubMed citation" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20805474" target="_blank">PubMed citation</a>]. Abstract: <blockquote>Chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) is genetically characterized by the Philadelphia (Ph) chromosome, formed through a reciprocal translocation between chromosomes 9 and 22 and giving rise to the constitutively active tyrosine kinase P210 BCR/ABL1. Therapeutic strategies aiming for a cure of CML will require full eradication of Ph chromosome-positive (Ph(+)) CML stem cells. Here we used gene-expression profiling to identify IL-1 receptor accessory protein (IL1RAP) as up-regulated in CML CD34(+) cells and also in cord blood CD34(+) cells as a consequence of retroviral BCR/ABL1 expression. To test whether IL1RAP expression distinguishes normal (Ph(-)) and leukemic (Ph(+)) cells within the CML CD34(+)CD38(-) cell compartment, we established a unique protocol for conducting FISH on small numbers of sorted cells. By using this method, we sorted cells directly into drops on slides to investigate their Ph-chromosome status. Interestingly, we found that the CML CD34(+)CD38(-)IL1RAP(+) cells were Ph(+), whereas CML CD34(+)CD38(-)IL1RAP(-) cells were almost exclusively Ph(-). By performing long-term culture-initiating cell assays on the two cell populations, we found that Ph(+) and Ph(-) candidate CML stem cells could be prospectively separated. In addition, by generating an anti-IL1RAP antibody, we provide proof of concept that IL1RAP can be used as a target on CML CD34(+)CD38(-) cells to induce antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity. This study thus identifies IL1RAP as a unique cell surface biomarker distinguishing Ph(+) from Ph(-) candidate CML stem cells and opens up a previously unexplored avenue for therapy of CML.</blockquote>Jim Tillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02092503335133096747noreply@blogger.com0