Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Jstarfully t1_izo5zpd wrote

They've literally tried this before and it's not that simple. First of all synthesizing the molecules aren't always simple, and then you have to get them into the cells and make sure they stay intact in the cells. Then even if you do, they don't always have the predicted effect.

46

twohundred37 t1_izoh1am wrote

Oh okay. No need to try again then since it wasn't successful the first time, Wile E Coyote!

91

Jstarfully t1_izoohcl wrote

They haven't done anything to address any of those issues. Making another AI or virtual 'hit' tool for pharmacologically active molecule fragments is literally not what is needed due to the aforementioned issues. It's well known in the field that this is not an effective approach.

5

RoiboPilot t1_izp9ora wrote

The difference here is in connection to your last sentence. They are using AI to see what molecules (receptors) give the right signals to kill the cancer cells, which seems to provide far better results than the traditional method of trial and error.

19

aclownofthorns t1_izqypbl wrote

I mean deep learning AI is basically virtual trial and error in computer processing speeds.

1

keeperkairos t1_izojuuy wrote

If you have a better way of finding molecules, you can more easily find one that best suits it's purpose.

10

Jstarfully t1_izoo882 wrote

But like I said, they've done this before and it didn't work then. They've done nothing to address those previous issues.

−11

keeperkairos t1_izoprpc wrote

Doesn't work like that. The team that made this is not the same team that can fix those issues, and it is possible that those issues can't be fixed, or it is not feasible, and thus having a different molecule would be better.

9

Jstarfully t1_izoqajq wrote

But that's not how the systems work?? The programmes come up with a whole bunch of different molecules based on the input. The programme isn't broken, the method is, and it won't be good until the issues with it are fixed.

Also, there really is no reason why it can't be the same team doing both these things, they're not isolated groups of people (and if they are, then there's a high chance they're not doing good science)

−4

JPGer t1_izp22n6 wrote

reminds me of that "game" that some scientists made based on protein folding, they had to tweak it based on user feedback..but then people used it and did like 100x the work they were trying to accomplish with it.

4

Glodraph t1_izp57lg wrote

Yep. Main issue is synthesis, cost, delivery, elimination rates and see if there is a therapeutic interval that make these molecules a viable treatment over the citotoxic effect. Plus you ideally want a lot of testing, from vitro to vivo. There is a lot to work on, but this could be an useful way to design molecules in a way faster way, then slim down to the most promising ones to test.

4

MrDuhVinci t1_izp6u74 wrote

But the fact it's been automated by AI... is handy, no? How many variations on a single Cancer exists... now, imagine knowing the exact sequence of molecules that is guaranteed to destroy each one.

It might not have an immediate practical application (due to the difficulties you describe)... but we should be thankful to have the knowledge available, in case of the eventuality that there practical solutions are found (even for a single cancer).

2

Gnostromo t1_izpn0e6 wrote

And as difficult as that is...putting hundreds/thousands of cancer related businesses out of business is even harder

2

Wordymanjenson t1_izpv95d wrote

But isn’t it amazing that two similar models reached the same conclusion? At least it gives insight into what works and what likely doesn’t.

2