| Biosynthesis Computing Center | |||
| About US | Biosynthesis Research | Science Teams | Computed Guidance |
|
Home About Center SBU Background News & Events Product Development |
Foundational Sciences Research Thrust Research Activity |
Science
Team Cancer Team |
Cancer Treatments |
Cancer Research Thrust
So then given a set of physicochemical properties {xi} of an incidence of cancer, then equipped with an incidence Forensic Map, F, it is possible to perform a Selection Map such that
 |
Eq. 1 |
where the term on the right-hand side is generalized symbolic representation of the defective gene, say, dG, and the ellipsis indicates any collection as the parenthetic term in direct association with the 'D'.
Remarkably, with the identifying of the defective gene, drugs can be administered as cocktail based on already approved drugs or even designed ground-up to target the specific, dG, gene. Besides, other non-invasive methods may be effected to enable the recycling or excretion of the Defect Stressor.
The Computing Center constructs computational Cancer Forensic Map, to the extent as possible, and identifies defective gene(s) based on specified cancer-specific set of properties supplied by an attending physician or medical facility. Actual implementation of treatments, of course, is in the realm of the medical profession.
Cancer Ignition Hypothesis and Seeding
Although, with an incidence of cancer, the construction of a
Forensic Map grants the most specificity for designing a treatment
for the remission and ultimately the elimination of the cancer, an
incidence is still requisite for this approach. A most generalized
guidance for cure of cancer, would be a method enabling discovering
the Defect Stressor, without the need for an incidence; and
effectively an approach based on an hypothesis of Cancer-Ignition
mechanism, which not being based on prior knowledge of
incidence-properties data acquired from a patient, therefore
proffers such best path for developing guidance for curative
mechanism
Inferentially then, evolving an Ignition Hypothesis based on tenable
ignition bio-condensation mechanism should be apt at accomplishing
the desire object. Fortunately, such hypothesis can be constructed
from the well-documented Warburg
Hypothesis, and its latter reinterpretation termed Warburg
Effect, although the two methods are not congruent, actually.
Obviously, the ignition bio-condensation reaction must necessarily
be based on an evolving cancer science that is quite sufficiently
comprehensive as to enable the construction of mechanisms of
conformal applicability to all known possibilities of cancers
ignitions, and that also always embody the Cancer-Ignition
Hypothesis.
Of course, such mechanism is tenable provided the science is based
on almost all intrinsic dynamic of the human cell. Even so, the
constructed generalized mechanism of cancer ignition posited on the
Warburg Hypothesis-based observations would still require some form
of validation. Significantly, such validation should proffer the
Center guidance a further refinement of the hypothesis to the end of
using the hypothesis to reflexively obtain an approach to
identifying seed cancerous biologic that invariable evolves into the
Defect Stressor based on the adopted Cancer-Ignition Hypothesis.
One approach towards the adoption of the Ignition Hypothesis and
hence the cancer science is the constructive identification of the
Defect Stressor of the Ignition process as well as ascertaining the
destruction of the Defect Stressor within the context of the
bio-condensation reaction mechanism of the medication-bioactivity.
Accordingly, the Computing Center rationale on cancer research which
intrinsically aligns with performing computational analyses based on
adopted Cancer-Ignition Hypothesis that explicitly identify
bio-condensation reaction biologic-products, correspondingly proffer
invaluable guidance in discovering the cancer biologics context in
correspondence to each type of cancer, and consequentially enabling
the elicitation and compilation of the bioactivity context of
medication cocktails determined as prospective cancer cures and
well-documented as such.
| Genome Filtering |
| Current Research Activity |
|
Cancer Target: Prostate Cancer Ref. Cocktail: NG-PAB-2306-100112† Designer Submitter: Pharmacist Object: Genome-Id & Curativeness Status: On-going Proprietary: Yes Access: Designer Referral Only † Cocktail Reference may change with further formalism |
|
Targeting an offending gene within a cell genome for medicating enjoys remarkable specificity when the gene is known both in form and structure. Identifying a gene within a genome, of course, requires a sort of selection mapping of gene filtering. So Genome Filtering is an essential aspect of developing Cancer Treatment Guidance, because for one thing, it allows for focused medicating of the cancerous or defective gene. The filtering, of course, means the use of filters to enable the isolation of the gene. In this regard the filtering process uses filters set. The Genome Filtering then entails the use of these data as input into a mathematical map, Forensic Map, which outputs results that enable the identification of the defective gene(s). However, the choice of the filters set and the manner of acquiring them has to be contextual for the filtering to have the preferred specificity. Yet the first consideration is the defining of the filters that are best suited for use. Such defining of filters, however, would find better applicability if such filters are defined from the set of characteristics that describe cancer. So then of immediate considerations would be the identification of the physical and chemical properties that characterize cancer. Generally cancer can be characterized by its size, the magnetic field it emanates, the electrostatic field it emanates, and volatile organic chemicals, VOCs, that it emits from the defining metabolic reactions occurring in the cells, etc. The mechanics of acquiring these characteristic filters set, however, are of some concern, in the sense of whether they would be invasive or noninvasive. Preferably however, noninvasive mechanics are ordinarily the common choice. So one approach is to acquire them on the surface of the body at a normal to a surface tangent of the cancer. Of course, such means that the characterization of the cancer include 3D imaging from which the perpendicularity to the surface is determined, and then filters data-set: the size, body-chemical emissions as measured, bioelectromagnetic readings, etc.; acquired as is most effective. However, while preferring noninvasive mechanics, the cases where invasive evaluations of the cancer are being performed permits the acquisition of the filters set without additional intrusiveness. So, say, from a sample of biopsy, the same filters set can be extracted from the cancer sample, although, this case makes necessary the specification of the additional filter data of the relative location within the expanse of the cancer from where the biopsy-sample gets extracted. Given the filters set, and using this as input into a Genome Filter embodying an operational Forensic Map, the defective gene is identified from amongst the genome that obtains from the virtual biosynthesis of the Genome Facility; however, very often, it is expected that the cardinality of the suggested set of defective gene may be more than unity. Even so, the specificity that obtains with regards to the medicating of the cancer is significant and its utility is invaluable. |
Biosynthesis Computing Center
An EnhKnowTM Strategic Business Unit
| About Center Center Background |
Legals Privacy Terms of Use |