<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_27_2051246</id>
	<title>Discovery of "Cancer-Proof" Rodent Cells</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1256651280000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>anglico sends news of research out of the University of Rochester that has identified a <a href="http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=3479">gene that "cancer-proofs" cells</a> in rodents. <i>"Despite a 30-year lifespan that gives ample time for cells to grow cancerous, a small rodent species called a naked mole rat has never been found with tumors of any kind &mdash; and now biologists at the University of Rochester think they know why. The findings, presented in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, show that the mole rat's cells express a gene called p16 that makes the cells 'claustrophobic,' stopping the cells' proliferation when too many of them crowd together, cutting off runaway growth before it can start. The effect of p16 is so pronounced that when researchers mutated the cells to induce a tumor, the cells' growth barely changed, whereas regular mouse cells became fully cancerous."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>anglico sends news of research out of the University of Rochester that has identified a gene that " cancer-proofs " cells in rodents .
" Despite a 30-year lifespan that gives ample time for cells to grow cancerous , a small rodent species called a naked mole rat has never been found with tumors of any kind    and now biologists at the University of Rochester think they know why .
The findings , presented in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , show that the mole rat 's cells express a gene called p16 that makes the cells 'claustrophobic, ' stopping the cells ' proliferation when too many of them crowd together , cutting off runaway growth before it can start .
The effect of p16 is so pronounced that when researchers mutated the cells to induce a tumor , the cells ' growth barely changed , whereas regular mouse cells became fully cancerous .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>anglico sends news of research out of the University of Rochester that has identified a gene that "cancer-proofs" cells in rodents.
"Despite a 30-year lifespan that gives ample time for cells to grow cancerous, a small rodent species called a naked mole rat has never been found with tumors of any kind — and now biologists at the University of Rochester think they know why.
The findings, presented in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, show that the mole rat's cells express a gene called p16 that makes the cells 'claustrophobic,' stopping the cells' proliferation when too many of them crowd together, cutting off runaway growth before it can start.
The effect of p16 is so pronounced that when researchers mutated the cells to induce a tumor, the cells' growth barely changed, whereas regular mouse cells became fully cancerous.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892907</id>
	<title>Finally rats can smoke!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256660040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The tobacco companies just gained tens billions of potential customers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The tobacco companies just gained tens billions of potential customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The tobacco companies just gained tens billions of potential customers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29893727</id>
	<title>Re:Naked mole rats are badasses.</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1256671620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Plus, they can run as fast backwards as they can forwards, which just is awesome....</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Is this because they can run backward quickly, or can't run very fast forward? Car analogy: I can modify your car so that it can go as fast backwards as it can forwards, though you might not like the method employed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Plus , they can run as fast backwards as they can forwards , which just is awesome... . Is this because they can run backward quickly , or ca n't run very fast forward ?
Car analogy : I can modify your car so that it can go as fast backwards as it can forwards , though you might not like the method employed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plus, they can run as fast backwards as they can forwards, which just is awesome....
Is this because they can run backward quickly, or can't run very fast forward?
Car analogy: I can modify your car so that it can go as fast backwards as it can forwards, though you might not like the method employed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892499</id>
	<title>Naked Mole Rats</title>
	<author>kryptKnight</author>
	<datestamp>1256656620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For those of you who aren't familiar with them, naked mole rats are pretty weird in a bunch of other ways</p><p>They lack the neurotransmitter that lets them feel pain, which is evolutionarily unique as far as I know.  Their respiratory systems are adapted to handle the high concentrations of CO2 that build up in their burrows.  Their metabolic rate is 2/3 of other similarly sized rodents, and they can slow it even further in times of need.</p><p>Their behavior is even weirder.  The colonies (200-300 in population) are organized eusocialy, ie in the same manner as a bee or ant colony.  There in one queen, with a harem of 3-4 males that produce all the offspring for the entire colony.  Like ants, naked mole rats form separate castes for diggers, soldiers, etc.  Oh, and to top it all off their front teeth are on the outside of their mouths to help them dig.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For those of you who are n't familiar with them , naked mole rats are pretty weird in a bunch of other waysThey lack the neurotransmitter that lets them feel pain , which is evolutionarily unique as far as I know .
Their respiratory systems are adapted to handle the high concentrations of CO2 that build up in their burrows .
Their metabolic rate is 2/3 of other similarly sized rodents , and they can slow it even further in times of need.Their behavior is even weirder .
The colonies ( 200-300 in population ) are organized eusocialy , ie in the same manner as a bee or ant colony .
There in one queen , with a harem of 3-4 males that produce all the offspring for the entire colony .
Like ants , naked mole rats form separate castes for diggers , soldiers , etc .
Oh , and to top it all off their front teeth are on the outside of their mouths to help them dig .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those of you who aren't familiar with them, naked mole rats are pretty weird in a bunch of other waysThey lack the neurotransmitter that lets them feel pain, which is evolutionarily unique as far as I know.
Their respiratory systems are adapted to handle the high concentrations of CO2 that build up in their burrows.
Their metabolic rate is 2/3 of other similarly sized rodents, and they can slow it even further in times of need.Their behavior is even weirder.
The colonies (200-300 in population) are organized eusocialy, ie in the same manner as a bee or ant colony.
There in one queen, with a harem of 3-4 males that produce all the offspring for the entire colony.
Like ants, naked mole rats form separate castes for diggers, soldiers, etc.
Oh, and to top it all off their front teeth are on the outside of their mouths to help them dig.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29894063</id>
	<title>Re:p16 is not new</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256762340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"One of the professors is Steve Martin, a famous cancer researcher."</p><p>So that's what he did after three amigos.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" One of the professors is Steve Martin , a famous cancer researcher .
" So that 's what he did after three amigos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"One of the professors is Steve Martin, a famous cancer researcher.
"So that's what he did after three amigos.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29898457</id>
	<title>Re:Naked mole rats are badasses.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256749380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Any episode of KP would tell you that. Go Rufus!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any episode of KP would tell you that .
Go Rufus !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any episode of KP would tell you that.
Go Rufus!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29897807</id>
	<title>Surviving Nuclear Fallout...</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1256746740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So that's why they were able to survive the bombs dropped by those red commie bastards and are still able to chew right through my power armor....
<br> <br>
How did they get so big though?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So that 's why they were able to survive the bombs dropped by those red commie bastards and are still able to chew right through my power armor... . How did they get so big though ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So that's why they were able to survive the bombs dropped by those red commie bastards and are still able to chew right through my power armor....
 
How did they get so big though?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892773</id>
	<title>Re:Intriguing. What about virus resistance?</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1256658900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With cancers caused by viral infections, it seems that the proliferation of cell division that is cancer is a secondary effect.  HTLV-1 provirus as an example causes cancer in only about 3\% of infected individuals.  It hijacks the normal functions of p300 and creb using its own TAX protein encoded in the virus' genome to massively upregulate the production of its own proteins.  Cell cycle regulation is often disrupted as a result of this meddling by the virus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With cancers caused by viral infections , it seems that the proliferation of cell division that is cancer is a secondary effect .
HTLV-1 provirus as an example causes cancer in only about 3 \ % of infected individuals .
It hijacks the normal functions of p300 and creb using its own TAX protein encoded in the virus ' genome to massively upregulate the production of its own proteins .
Cell cycle regulation is often disrupted as a result of this meddling by the virus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With cancers caused by viral infections, it seems that the proliferation of cell division that is cancer is a secondary effect.
HTLV-1 provirus as an example causes cancer in only about 3\% of infected individuals.
It hijacks the normal functions of p300 and creb using its own TAX protein encoded in the virus' genome to massively upregulate the production of its own proteins.
Cell cycle regulation is often disrupted as a result of this meddling by the virus.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29895039</id>
	<title>Re:p16 is not new</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256732400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>p16 is a well-known gene. They definitely did not discover it in this study. This article is very misleading. Humans definitely have <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P16\_(gene)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">p16</a> [wikipedia.org],</p></div><p>The article isn't misleading at all.  The press release simply says that they think that the way p16 is expressed makes the mole rates cancer-resistant, and doesn't say that it isn't present in humans.  Skimming through the full paper the authors make it clear that they didn't identify any of the proteins themselves but they think they have evidence that the proteins are used differently by humans and mole rats, and that they think this is why the rats are cancer resistant.</p><p>You're rights about the caveats in the paper, but they didn't say some of the things you're implying.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>p16 is a well-known gene .
They definitely did not discover it in this study .
This article is very misleading .
Humans definitely have p16 [ wikipedia.org ] ,The article is n't misleading at all .
The press release simply says that they think that the way p16 is expressed makes the mole rates cancer-resistant , and does n't say that it is n't present in humans .
Skimming through the full paper the authors make it clear that they did n't identify any of the proteins themselves but they think they have evidence that the proteins are used differently by humans and mole rats , and that they think this is why the rats are cancer resistant.You 're rights about the caveats in the paper , but they did n't say some of the things you 're implying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>p16 is a well-known gene.
They definitely did not discover it in this study.
This article is very misleading.
Humans definitely have p16 [wikipedia.org],The article isn't misleading at all.
The press release simply says that they think that the way p16 is expressed makes the mole rates cancer-resistant, and doesn't say that it isn't present in humans.
Skimming through the full paper the authors make it clear that they didn't identify any of the proteins themselves but they think they have evidence that the proteins are used differently by humans and mole rats, and that they think this is why the rats are cancer resistant.You're rights about the caveats in the paper, but they didn't say some of the things you're implying.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29901761</id>
	<title>Re:Intriguing. What about virus resistance?</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1256763420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More correctly, the "cancer" would still happen but there would be an extra regulatory mechanism so that it wouldn't be nearly as prolific. At it's best, it would be almost like not having cancer. With luck, the slower proliferation would give the immune system a chance to clean up the mess. If not, it would be a lot easier for an oncologist to clean up the mess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More correctly , the " cancer " would still happen but there would be an extra regulatory mechanism so that it would n't be nearly as prolific .
At it 's best , it would be almost like not having cancer .
With luck , the slower proliferation would give the immune system a chance to clean up the mess .
If not , it would be a lot easier for an oncologist to clean up the mess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More correctly, the "cancer" would still happen but there would be an extra regulatory mechanism so that it wouldn't be nearly as prolific.
At it's best, it would be almost like not having cancer.
With luck, the slower proliferation would give the immune system a chance to clean up the mess.
If not, it would be a lot easier for an oncologist to clean up the mess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892639</id>
	<title>Re:Intriguing. What about virus resistance?</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1256657880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Given that the popular literature is telling us that many cancers are caused by virii, what is the resistance to virus infection by these cells relative to the mouse cells?</p></div><p>Good question!</p><p>Most of the viruses strongly associated with cancer work by specifically inactivating proteins which safeguard against cancer, or they produce tons of a protein or several proteins that urges the cell towards mad replication.  A virus infecting a cell often has a vested interest in seeing that one cell produce as much as possible to produce more virus.  (If computers could reproduce themselves, undoubtedly some botnets would have their infected computers reproduce for much the same reason.)  A major safeguard against cancer though is limiting cell division in most cells, so cells which are urged to divide without limits by a virus lack that major safeguard against cancer.</p><p>In the event that a mole rat got infected with a virus that caused cancer in that manner, it would depend on what method the virus took to make the cell divide out of control.  There might well be mole rat viruses which specifically inhibit p16.  If one were to take a carcinogenic virus and make it infect mole rat cells, it seems p16 might prevent the viruses from causing cancer:  <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;ct=res&amp;cd=1&amp;ved=0CAkQFjAA&amp;url=http\%3A\%2F\%2Fwww.pnas.org\%2Fcontent\%2Fearly\%2F2009\%2F10\%2F23\%2F0905252106.abstract&amp;ei=dannSqG2C4j6sQPu5emcBQ&amp;usg=AFQjCNHVE1FjBz79G--zymkts2IUH\_-1Zw&amp;sig2=Kh4bpyDfxkMfbIs2k39G9w" title="google.com">From the actual PNAS article abstract: </a> [google.com] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>we show that a combination of activated Ras and SV40 LT fails to induce robust anchorage-independent growth in naked mole-rat cells, while it readily transforms mouse fibroblasts.</p></div><p>SV40 and I believe Ras (or maybe not) are viral proteins that cause cells to proliferate without limits ( ~ cancer), they don't have that effect in mole-rat cells.</p><p>Human cells are actually somewhat claustrophobic even without p16.  Culture human fibroblasts (as the authors did) and the cells will happily reproduce, but only until they coat the media and are touching other cells on all sides.  Normal human fibroblasts don't pile up on top of each other.  They do when they have activated Ras or SV40 LT though.  Mole rat cells don't.  Also mole rat cells cultured tend to be more spread out than cultured human cells.  The authors show some more important molecular details.</p><p>What would have been truly amazing would be if they had caused human cells to express p16 as mole rat cells do, and then demonstrated that human cells then are able to resist piling up in the presence of activated Ras or SV40 LT.  I don't see it in the paper, so I'd suspect they tried doing that and it didn't work, and/or they had to do some more tinkering to get p16 to work in human cells and this will be even bigger news when they get it.</p><p>I am not a virologist or cancer biologist, so please, all you mean virologists and cancer biologists out there, go easy on me!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Given that the popular literature is telling us that many cancers are caused by virii , what is the resistance to virus infection by these cells relative to the mouse cells ? Good question ! Most of the viruses strongly associated with cancer work by specifically inactivating proteins which safeguard against cancer , or they produce tons of a protein or several proteins that urges the cell towards mad replication .
A virus infecting a cell often has a vested interest in seeing that one cell produce as much as possible to produce more virus .
( If computers could reproduce themselves , undoubtedly some botnets would have their infected computers reproduce for much the same reason .
) A major safeguard against cancer though is limiting cell division in most cells , so cells which are urged to divide without limits by a virus lack that major safeguard against cancer.In the event that a mole rat got infected with a virus that caused cancer in that manner , it would depend on what method the virus took to make the cell divide out of control .
There might well be mole rat viruses which specifically inhibit p16 .
If one were to take a carcinogenic virus and make it infect mole rat cells , it seems p16 might prevent the viruses from causing cancer : From the actual PNAS article abstract : [ google.com ] we show that a combination of activated Ras and SV40 LT fails to induce robust anchorage-independent growth in naked mole-rat cells , while it readily transforms mouse fibroblasts.SV40 and I believe Ras ( or maybe not ) are viral proteins that cause cells to proliferate without limits ( ~ cancer ) , they do n't have that effect in mole-rat cells.Human cells are actually somewhat claustrophobic even without p16 .
Culture human fibroblasts ( as the authors did ) and the cells will happily reproduce , but only until they coat the media and are touching other cells on all sides .
Normal human fibroblasts do n't pile up on top of each other .
They do when they have activated Ras or SV40 LT though .
Mole rat cells do n't .
Also mole rat cells cultured tend to be more spread out than cultured human cells .
The authors show some more important molecular details.What would have been truly amazing would be if they had caused human cells to express p16 as mole rat cells do , and then demonstrated that human cells then are able to resist piling up in the presence of activated Ras or SV40 LT. I do n't see it in the paper , so I 'd suspect they tried doing that and it did n't work , and/or they had to do some more tinkering to get p16 to work in human cells and this will be even bigger news when they get it.I am not a virologist or cancer biologist , so please , all you mean virologists and cancer biologists out there , go easy on me !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given that the popular literature is telling us that many cancers are caused by virii, what is the resistance to virus infection by these cells relative to the mouse cells?Good question!Most of the viruses strongly associated with cancer work by specifically inactivating proteins which safeguard against cancer, or they produce tons of a protein or several proteins that urges the cell towards mad replication.
A virus infecting a cell often has a vested interest in seeing that one cell produce as much as possible to produce more virus.
(If computers could reproduce themselves, undoubtedly some botnets would have their infected computers reproduce for much the same reason.
)  A major safeguard against cancer though is limiting cell division in most cells, so cells which are urged to divide without limits by a virus lack that major safeguard against cancer.In the event that a mole rat got infected with a virus that caused cancer in that manner, it would depend on what method the virus took to make the cell divide out of control.
There might well be mole rat viruses which specifically inhibit p16.
If one were to take a carcinogenic virus and make it infect mole rat cells, it seems p16 might prevent the viruses from causing cancer:  From the actual PNAS article abstract:  [google.com] we show that a combination of activated Ras and SV40 LT fails to induce robust anchorage-independent growth in naked mole-rat cells, while it readily transforms mouse fibroblasts.SV40 and I believe Ras (or maybe not) are viral proteins that cause cells to proliferate without limits ( ~ cancer), they don't have that effect in mole-rat cells.Human cells are actually somewhat claustrophobic even without p16.
Culture human fibroblasts (as the authors did) and the cells will happily reproduce, but only until they coat the media and are touching other cells on all sides.
Normal human fibroblasts don't pile up on top of each other.
They do when they have activated Ras or SV40 LT though.
Mole rat cells don't.
Also mole rat cells cultured tend to be more spread out than cultured human cells.
The authors show some more important molecular details.What would have been truly amazing would be if they had caused human cells to express p16 as mole rat cells do, and then demonstrated that human cells then are able to resist piling up in the presence of activated Ras or SV40 LT.  I don't see it in the paper, so I'd suspect they tried doing that and it didn't work, and/or they had to do some more tinkering to get p16 to work in human cells and this will be even bigger news when they get it.I am not a virologist or cancer biologist, so please, all you mean virologists and cancer biologists out there, go easy on me!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29894573</id>
	<title>Missing the point:</title>
	<author>Hartree</author>
	<datestamp>1256727420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think there's some misunderstanding of what the PNAS article says.</p><p>P16 is a known tumor supressor gene. It's also in humans. Think of it (and P27, another tumor supressor gene, as well) as sprinkler systems that get set off in response to the fire of excess cell proliferation.</p><p>What they found was that in the mole rats, the cells were much more sensitive to crowding than human cells were. Apparently, there is a second crowding detecting system in the mole rats that is more sensitive. They also have the less sensitive crowding detecting system that humans have.</p><p>Further, they found that this early crowding signal "set off" (caused expression of)the P16 supressor. The less sensitive crowding detection system that both humans and mole rats have instead "sets off" the P27 tumor supressor gene.</p><p>Just having the P16 gene isn't the whole story, humans have it too. It's the entire chain of signals that "sounds the alarm" from mild crowding of the cell and proceeds to the expression of P16. Knowing that it's P16 that gets expressed gives a starting point to figure out the rest of the system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think there 's some misunderstanding of what the PNAS article says.P16 is a known tumor supressor gene .
It 's also in humans .
Think of it ( and P27 , another tumor supressor gene , as well ) as sprinkler systems that get set off in response to the fire of excess cell proliferation.What they found was that in the mole rats , the cells were much more sensitive to crowding than human cells were .
Apparently , there is a second crowding detecting system in the mole rats that is more sensitive .
They also have the less sensitive crowding detecting system that humans have.Further , they found that this early crowding signal " set off " ( caused expression of ) the P16 supressor .
The less sensitive crowding detection system that both humans and mole rats have instead " sets off " the P27 tumor supressor gene.Just having the P16 gene is n't the whole story , humans have it too .
It 's the entire chain of signals that " sounds the alarm " from mild crowding of the cell and proceeds to the expression of P16 .
Knowing that it 's P16 that gets expressed gives a starting point to figure out the rest of the system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think there's some misunderstanding of what the PNAS article says.P16 is a known tumor supressor gene.
It's also in humans.
Think of it (and P27, another tumor supressor gene, as well) as sprinkler systems that get set off in response to the fire of excess cell proliferation.What they found was that in the mole rats, the cells were much more sensitive to crowding than human cells were.
Apparently, there is a second crowding detecting system in the mole rats that is more sensitive.
They also have the less sensitive crowding detecting system that humans have.Further, they found that this early crowding signal "set off" (caused expression of)the P16 supressor.
The less sensitive crowding detection system that both humans and mole rats have instead "sets off" the P27 tumor supressor gene.Just having the P16 gene isn't the whole story, humans have it too.
It's the entire chain of signals that "sounds the alarm" from mild crowding of the cell and proceeds to the expression of P16.
Knowing that it's P16 that gets expressed gives a starting point to figure out the rest of the system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29896345</id>
	<title>Move over Shark Cartalage</title>
	<author>arthurpaliden</author>
	<datestamp>1256740920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now that this has made the news I expect that 'Mole Rat Extract' will soon be apearing in spam as the next curall for cancer.  Of coruse 'Big Pharma' will be keeping it secret but you can buy it from our site for only $699.00 per dose.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now that this has made the news I expect that 'Mole Rat Extract ' will soon be apearing in spam as the next curall for cancer .
Of coruse 'Big Pharma ' will be keeping it secret but you can buy it from our site for only $ 699.00 per dose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now that this has made the news I expect that 'Mole Rat Extract' will soon be apearing in spam as the next curall for cancer.
Of coruse 'Big Pharma' will be keeping it secret but you can buy it from our site for only $699.00 per dose.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892375</id>
	<title>Not good enough</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256655420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're not going to get a Nobel for something that only works on lawyers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're not going to get a Nobel for something that only works on lawyers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're not going to get a Nobel for something that only works on lawyers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892463</id>
	<title>Obligatory</title>
	<author>Naurgrim</author>
	<datestamp>1256656440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I for one say welcome to our cancer immune naked mole rat overlords.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I for one say welcome to our cancer immune naked mole rat overlords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I for one say welcome to our cancer immune naked mole rat overlords.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892707</id>
	<title>Re:Naked mole rats are badasses.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256658420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>all in favour of sacrificing fuzzyfuzzyfungus say aye</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>all in favour of sacrificing fuzzyfuzzyfungus say aye</tokentext>
<sentencetext>all in favour of sacrificing fuzzyfuzzyfungus say aye</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29893161</id>
	<title>Unique rats</title>
	<author>igny</author>
	<datestamp>1256663520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No wonder considering they may be relatives to the pan-dimensional, hyper-intelligent race of beings.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No wonder considering they may be relatives to the pan-dimensional , hyper-intelligent race of beings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No wonder considering they may be relatives to the pan-dimensional, hyper-intelligent race of beings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29894505</id>
	<title>oblig: live streaming naked mole rat cam</title>
	<author>operator\_error</author>
	<datestamp>1256725860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/SmallMammals/default.cfm?cam=NMR" title="si.edu">http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/SmallMammals/default.cfm?cam=NMR</a> [si.edu]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/SmallMammals/default.cfm ? cam = NMR [ si.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/SmallMammals/default.cfm?cam=NMR [si.edu]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892637</id>
	<title>mole rats are people too... even if they're naked</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256657880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK... so they're naked already.  How do I get me a date with one of these rats?  Do I need duct tape?</p><p>
&nbsp; I want the fruits of my loins to be cancer free.</p><p>Just doing my bit for humanity</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK... so they 're naked already .
How do I get me a date with one of these rats ?
Do I need duct tape ?
  I want the fruits of my loins to be cancer free.Just doing my bit for humanity</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK... so they're naked already.
How do I get me a date with one of these rats?
Do I need duct tape?
  I want the fruits of my loins to be cancer free.Just doing my bit for humanity</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29893569</id>
	<title>Re:p16 is not new</title>
	<author>TheClockworkSoul</author>
	<datestamp>1256669340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While it's certainly true that p16 is not only known, but a major focus of cancer research, this paper isn't announcing its discovery, it's describing an impressive property of naked mole rat cellular biology (namely, its resistance to cancerous transformation), which they traced to the naked mole rat's version of the p16 protein (which is homologous to human p16).
<p>Like a previous poster said, I would be more convinced had the researchers transfected a human cell with the mole rat p16 and showed it to be resistant to cancerous transformation, but that being said, this is likely to be a pretty big discovery. Considering the central role that p16 plays in oncogenesis, this can potentially lead to new insights about that process.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While it 's certainly true that p16 is not only known , but a major focus of cancer research , this paper is n't announcing its discovery , it 's describing an impressive property of naked mole rat cellular biology ( namely , its resistance to cancerous transformation ) , which they traced to the naked mole rat 's version of the p16 protein ( which is homologous to human p16 ) .
Like a previous poster said , I would be more convinced had the researchers transfected a human cell with the mole rat p16 and showed it to be resistant to cancerous transformation , but that being said , this is likely to be a pretty big discovery .
Considering the central role that p16 plays in oncogenesis , this can potentially lead to new insights about that process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While it's certainly true that p16 is not only known, but a major focus of cancer research, this paper isn't announcing its discovery, it's describing an impressive property of naked mole rat cellular biology (namely, its resistance to cancerous transformation), which they traced to the naked mole rat's version of the p16 protein (which is homologous to human p16).
Like a previous poster said, I would be more convinced had the researchers transfected a human cell with the mole rat p16 and showed it to be resistant to cancerous transformation, but that being said, this is likely to be a pretty big discovery.
Considering the central role that p16 plays in oncogenesis, this can potentially lead to new insights about that process.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29897293</id>
	<title>Hmmm...</title>
	<author>rayharris</author>
	<datestamp>1256744700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Still no cure for... oh, wait.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Still no cure for... oh , wait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Still no cure for... oh, wait.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892347</id>
	<title>How long</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256655180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>before our resident EMH comes equipped with a p16 loaded hypospray?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>before our resident EMH comes equipped with a p16 loaded hypospray ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>before our resident EMH comes equipped with a p16 loaded hypospray?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29898351</id>
	<title>Re:So what.</title>
	<author>jbeaupre</author>
	<datestamp>1256748960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There was a story many years ago about red rat poison.  One day they stopped making it red.  The explanation was that the red dye caused cancer in rats.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a story many years ago about red rat poison .
One day they stopped making it red .
The explanation was that the red dye caused cancer in rats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a story many years ago about red rat poison.
One day they stopped making it red.
The explanation was that the red dye caused cancer in rats.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892495</id>
	<title>Re:Intriguing. What about virus resistance?</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1256656620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The short answer is no.  p16 would help stop a virus from causing cancer but it would not prevent the virus from infecting the cell.  If you're curious about some of the research being done on the phenomena of viruses causing cancer then I'll direct your attention <a href="http://www.bmb.colostate.edu/faculty\_detailed.cfm?facultynumber=16" title="colostate.edu">here</a> [colostate.edu].  The HTLV-1 provirus hijacks p300 and CREB and uses them to reproduce its self.  p300 is a transcriptional co-activator which basically means that it greatly increases the rate of transcription of a gene.  p16 wouldn't stop the infection of the cell nor would it stop the virus from hijacking these cellular proteins.  However, it would help keep cell division relatively under control.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The short answer is no .
p16 would help stop a virus from causing cancer but it would not prevent the virus from infecting the cell .
If you 're curious about some of the research being done on the phenomena of viruses causing cancer then I 'll direct your attention here [ colostate.edu ] .
The HTLV-1 provirus hijacks p300 and CREB and uses them to reproduce its self .
p300 is a transcriptional co-activator which basically means that it greatly increases the rate of transcription of a gene .
p16 would n't stop the infection of the cell nor would it stop the virus from hijacking these cellular proteins .
However , it would help keep cell division relatively under control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The short answer is no.
p16 would help stop a virus from causing cancer but it would not prevent the virus from infecting the cell.
If you're curious about some of the research being done on the phenomena of viruses causing cancer then I'll direct your attention here [colostate.edu].
The HTLV-1 provirus hijacks p300 and CREB and uses them to reproduce its self.
p300 is a transcriptional co-activator which basically means that it greatly increases the rate of transcription of a gene.
p16 wouldn't stop the infection of the cell nor would it stop the virus from hijacking these cellular proteins.
However, it would help keep cell division relatively under control.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29896551</id>
	<title>inducing tumors...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256741760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Waitaminute-- I know this shouldn't be a revelation, but they can easily and reliably induce tumors? I know that this is just a function of killing cells off repeatedly in an area, or applying some radiation therapy, but does this scare anyone else? I know we should be focusing on the notion of a cure here, but I can't help but be alarmed that it is de rigueur to be able to induce tumors at a whim, for experimental purposes or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Waitaminute-- I know this should n't be a revelation , but they can easily and reliably induce tumors ?
I know that this is just a function of killing cells off repeatedly in an area , or applying some radiation therapy , but does this scare anyone else ?
I know we should be focusing on the notion of a cure here , but I ca n't help but be alarmed that it is de rigueur to be able to induce tumors at a whim , for experimental purposes or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Waitaminute-- I know this shouldn't be a revelation, but they can easily and reliably induce tumors?
I know that this is just a function of killing cells off repeatedly in an area, or applying some radiation therapy, but does this scare anyone else?
I know we should be focusing on the notion of a cure here, but I can't help but be alarmed that it is de rigueur to be able to induce tumors at a whim, for experimental purposes or not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892373</id>
	<title>Naked mole rats are badasses.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256655420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not only are they cold-blooded and eusocial, they are <a href="http://www.livescience.com/animals/080128-mole-rat-pain.html" title="livescience.com">substantially immune</a> [livescience.com] to certain types of pain. Plus, when their burrow is invaded by a snake, they will deliberately sacrifice peripheral members of the colony to protect the core.<br> <br>

We are just lucky that they eat only tubers, and look more or less like vienna sausages with legs, or they would be a shoe-in for title of "socialist supervermin public enemy number 1".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only are they cold-blooded and eusocial , they are substantially immune [ livescience.com ] to certain types of pain .
Plus , when their burrow is invaded by a snake , they will deliberately sacrifice peripheral members of the colony to protect the core .
We are just lucky that they eat only tubers , and look more or less like vienna sausages with legs , or they would be a shoe-in for title of " socialist supervermin public enemy number 1 " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only are they cold-blooded and eusocial, they are substantially immune [livescience.com] to certain types of pain.
Plus, when their burrow is invaded by a snake, they will deliberately sacrifice peripheral members of the colony to protect the core.
We are just lucky that they eat only tubers, and look more or less like vienna sausages with legs, or they would be a shoe-in for title of "socialist supervermin public enemy number 1".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892485</id>
	<title>Based on the picture</title>
	<author>Korbeau</author>
	<datestamp>1256656620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll be happier dying at age 50 of cancer than looking like a naked mole rat!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll be happier dying at age 50 of cancer than looking like a naked mole rat !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll be happier dying at age 50 of cancer than looking like a naked mole rat!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29893601</id>
	<title>Re:Naked mole rats are badasses.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256669760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>or they would be a shoe-in</p></div></blockquote><p>The phrase is "shoo-in", not "shoe-in".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>or they would be a shoe-inThe phrase is " shoo-in " , not " shoe-in " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or they would be a shoe-inThe phrase is "shoo-in", not "shoe-in".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29907137</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256757420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Was this not mentioned in New Scientist recently - from memory Humans have one hurdle for Cancer to overcome while the naked mole rat has two hurdles making it so much harder to start the cancer process.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was this not mentioned in New Scientist recently - from memory Humans have one hurdle for Cancer to overcome while the naked mole rat has two hurdles making it so much harder to start the cancer process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Was this not mentioned in New Scientist recently - from memory Humans have one hurdle for Cancer to overcome while the naked mole rat has two hurdles making it so much harder to start the cancer process.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29899705</id>
	<title>Does "naked" imply it is hairless?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256754660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does "naked" imply it is hairless? or does it just have a different belief system than it's clothed cousins?<br>Seriously, does the gene also prevent the "runaway growth" of cells that produce hair?<br>If I were to get some gene therapy for p16, will my hair stop growing everywhere?<br>What else? my finger nails?<br>Maybe my ability to condition my body to environmental changes will be drastically slowed as well.<br>I love this cutting edge research stuff, but I would hate to be the one "staking claim" to any discovery because it seems they can't explain JACK SHIT.  If they could come up with a unified theory for biology, they could predict this stuff exists or could exist.<br>Please - spend more time understanding what the JUNK in my DNA is really about!<br>Like the guy who "discovered" the mem-resistor through inductive proof, that was awesome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does " naked " imply it is hairless ?
or does it just have a different belief system than it 's clothed cousins ? Seriously , does the gene also prevent the " runaway growth " of cells that produce hair ? If I were to get some gene therapy for p16 , will my hair stop growing everywhere ? What else ?
my finger nails ? Maybe my ability to condition my body to environmental changes will be drastically slowed as well.I love this cutting edge research stuff , but I would hate to be the one " staking claim " to any discovery because it seems they ca n't explain JACK SHIT .
If they could come up with a unified theory for biology , they could predict this stuff exists or could exist.Please - spend more time understanding what the JUNK in my DNA is really about ! Like the guy who " discovered " the mem-resistor through inductive proof , that was awesome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does "naked" imply it is hairless?
or does it just have a different belief system than it's clothed cousins?Seriously, does the gene also prevent the "runaway growth" of cells that produce hair?If I were to get some gene therapy for p16, will my hair stop growing everywhere?What else?
my finger nails?Maybe my ability to condition my body to environmental changes will be drastically slowed as well.I love this cutting edge research stuff, but I would hate to be the one "staking claim" to any discovery because it seems they can't explain JACK SHIT.
If they could come up with a unified theory for biology, they could predict this stuff exists or could exist.Please - spend more time understanding what the JUNK in my DNA is really about!Like the guy who "discovered" the mem-resistor through inductive proof, that was awesome.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892853</id>
	<title>Re:Intriguing. What about virus resistance?</title>
	<author>Scubaraf</author>
	<datestamp>1256659560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now you know how I feel when there's an article about API's, Ubuntu, or codecs.<br> <br>
Human cells have and express p16-INK4A normally - it's part of the CDKN2A gene locus. It is a cell cycle control gene whose main function is to put the brakes on replication. p16 is expressed in human cells and is often mutated or outright deleted in many human cancers of all cell types.<br>
<a href="http://www.sanger.ac.uk/perl/genetics/CGP/cosmic?action=bygene&amp;ln=CDKN2A&amp;start=1&amp;end=157&amp;coords=AA:AA" title="sanger.ac.uk" rel="nofollow">COSMIC</a> [sanger.ac.uk] (new window)<br> <br>
The difference described in naked mole rats is that their cells induce p16 expression after minimal contact with neighboring cells while human and rat cells need more prodding to turn on cell cycle control genes.<br> <br>
This is a cool finding, but does not have a direct application in human cancers anytime soon. It's very hard to turn on a gene that has been mutated or deleted in cancer cells. You have to do it in practically every cell, otherwise, they grow back. Even then it may be too late. Loss of contact inhibition may be necessary in early oncogenesis, but restoration of p16 expression in a cancer cell that already has multiple genetic mutations, may not do much at that point. So, it's an interesting finding and I hope it leads to a better understanding of cancer and cancer prevention. But honestly, we have cool findings like this once a week. It just requires the right spin to sell it to the media - like calling something a "cancer-proof" gene - and it finds its way here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now you know how I feel when there 's an article about API 's , Ubuntu , or codecs .
Human cells have and express p16-INK4A normally - it 's part of the CDKN2A gene locus .
It is a cell cycle control gene whose main function is to put the brakes on replication .
p16 is expressed in human cells and is often mutated or outright deleted in many human cancers of all cell types .
COSMIC [ sanger.ac.uk ] ( new window ) The difference described in naked mole rats is that their cells induce p16 expression after minimal contact with neighboring cells while human and rat cells need more prodding to turn on cell cycle control genes .
This is a cool finding , but does not have a direct application in human cancers anytime soon .
It 's very hard to turn on a gene that has been mutated or deleted in cancer cells .
You have to do it in practically every cell , otherwise , they grow back .
Even then it may be too late .
Loss of contact inhibition may be necessary in early oncogenesis , but restoration of p16 expression in a cancer cell that already has multiple genetic mutations , may not do much at that point .
So , it 's an interesting finding and I hope it leads to a better understanding of cancer and cancer prevention .
But honestly , we have cool findings like this once a week .
It just requires the right spin to sell it to the media - like calling something a " cancer-proof " gene - and it finds its way here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now you know how I feel when there's an article about API's, Ubuntu, or codecs.
Human cells have and express p16-INK4A normally - it's part of the CDKN2A gene locus.
It is a cell cycle control gene whose main function is to put the brakes on replication.
p16 is expressed in human cells and is often mutated or outright deleted in many human cancers of all cell types.
COSMIC [sanger.ac.uk] (new window) 
The difference described in naked mole rats is that their cells induce p16 expression after minimal contact with neighboring cells while human and rat cells need more prodding to turn on cell cycle control genes.
This is a cool finding, but does not have a direct application in human cancers anytime soon.
It's very hard to turn on a gene that has been mutated or deleted in cancer cells.
You have to do it in practically every cell, otherwise, they grow back.
Even then it may be too late.
Loss of contact inhibition may be necessary in early oncogenesis, but restoration of p16 expression in a cancer cell that already has multiple genetic mutations, may not do much at that point.
So, it's an interesting finding and I hope it leads to a better understanding of cancer and cancer prevention.
But honestly, we have cool findings like this once a week.
It just requires the right spin to sell it to the media - like calling something a "cancer-proof" gene - and it finds its way here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892843</id>
	<title>Re:Naked mole rats are badasses.</title>
	<author>Xiph1980</author>
	<datestamp>1256659500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Plus, they can run as fast backwards as they can forwards, which just is awesome....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Plus , they can run as fast backwards as they can forwards , which just is awesome... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plus, they can run as fast backwards as they can forwards, which just is awesome....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892335</id>
	<title>Too bad...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256655060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Homo sapiens couldn't have had sex with mole rats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Homo sapiens could n't have had sex with mole rats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Homo sapiens couldn't have had sex with mole rats.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892915</id>
	<title>p16 is not new</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256660100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am an undergraduate at UC Berkeley and am currently taking a class on cancer, especially the genetic basis for its development. One of the professors is Steve Martin, a famous cancer researcher. Even if I wasn't in this class, I would know that p16 is a well-known gene. They definitely did not discover it in this study. This article is very misleading. Humans definitely have <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P16\_(gene)" title="wikipedia.org">p16</a> [wikipedia.org], is it vital to the normal cell cycle. It is also frequently mutated in melanomas, one of the most vicious cancers. It is most likely that this group has found that naked mole rat cells use p16 in a unique way as it relates to certain types of cancer transformation pathways. Bear in mind that this sounds like this was a completely <i>in vitro</i> study, and so there is no proof this this gene behaves this way in wild mole rats.<br>
<br>
All that being said, this could still turn out to be a big discovery. If they can identify the molecular mechanism behind the improved cancer suppression, it could lead to novel treatments.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am an undergraduate at UC Berkeley and am currently taking a class on cancer , especially the genetic basis for its development .
One of the professors is Steve Martin , a famous cancer researcher .
Even if I was n't in this class , I would know that p16 is a well-known gene .
They definitely did not discover it in this study .
This article is very misleading .
Humans definitely have p16 [ wikipedia.org ] , is it vital to the normal cell cycle .
It is also frequently mutated in melanomas , one of the most vicious cancers .
It is most likely that this group has found that naked mole rat cells use p16 in a unique way as it relates to certain types of cancer transformation pathways .
Bear in mind that this sounds like this was a completely in vitro study , and so there is no proof this this gene behaves this way in wild mole rats .
All that being said , this could still turn out to be a big discovery .
If they can identify the molecular mechanism behind the improved cancer suppression , it could lead to novel treatments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am an undergraduate at UC Berkeley and am currently taking a class on cancer, especially the genetic basis for its development.
One of the professors is Steve Martin, a famous cancer researcher.
Even if I wasn't in this class, I would know that p16 is a well-known gene.
They definitely did not discover it in this study.
This article is very misleading.
Humans definitely have p16 [wikipedia.org], is it vital to the normal cell cycle.
It is also frequently mutated in melanomas, one of the most vicious cancers.
It is most likely that this group has found that naked mole rat cells use p16 in a unique way as it relates to certain types of cancer transformation pathways.
Bear in mind that this sounds like this was a completely in vitro study, and so there is no proof this this gene behaves this way in wild mole rats.
All that being said, this could still turn out to be a big discovery.
If they can identify the molecular mechanism behind the improved cancer suppression, it could lead to novel treatments.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29893015</id>
	<title>Wrong.</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1256661540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please don't spread your misinformation to others.</p><p>Mammals are by definition, warm blooded.  These animals do have a difficult time controlling their body temp, but that does not make them cold blooded.</p><p>They also are not 'immune' to pain.  Immunity is by definition  resistance to infection from other organisms such as bacteria and viruses.  Pain is not another organism, its a sensation the brain generates based on the signals sent by nerve endings throughout different parts of the body.  They may not perceive certain types of pain, but that is not "immunity".</p><p>I'm guessing you failed high school biology?</p><p>They aren't a particularly impressive vermin, their inability to control their own temp puts severe constraints on where they can live and what they can do.  The would, for instance, not survive in most of the united states for most of the year without remaining a fair distance underground, in which case they are of little threat to much of anything other than some plants with deep roots.</p><p>Your potatoes are still safe, since they would freeze to death in the winters where most potatoes are grown, and most people keep their homes below an acceptable temp for them to reside in doors.</p><p>Theres a reason they live in the desert.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please do n't spread your misinformation to others.Mammals are by definition , warm blooded .
These animals do have a difficult time controlling their body temp , but that does not make them cold blooded.They also are not 'immune ' to pain .
Immunity is by definition resistance to infection from other organisms such as bacteria and viruses .
Pain is not another organism , its a sensation the brain generates based on the signals sent by nerve endings throughout different parts of the body .
They may not perceive certain types of pain , but that is not " immunity " .I 'm guessing you failed high school biology ? They are n't a particularly impressive vermin , their inability to control their own temp puts severe constraints on where they can live and what they can do .
The would , for instance , not survive in most of the united states for most of the year without remaining a fair distance underground , in which case they are of little threat to much of anything other than some plants with deep roots.Your potatoes are still safe , since they would freeze to death in the winters where most potatoes are grown , and most people keep their homes below an acceptable temp for them to reside in doors.Theres a reason they live in the desert .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please don't spread your misinformation to others.Mammals are by definition, warm blooded.
These animals do have a difficult time controlling their body temp, but that does not make them cold blooded.They also are not 'immune' to pain.
Immunity is by definition  resistance to infection from other organisms such as bacteria and viruses.
Pain is not another organism, its a sensation the brain generates based on the signals sent by nerve endings throughout different parts of the body.
They may not perceive certain types of pain, but that is not "immunity".I'm guessing you failed high school biology?They aren't a particularly impressive vermin, their inability to control their own temp puts severe constraints on where they can live and what they can do.
The would, for instance, not survive in most of the united states for most of the year without remaining a fair distance underground, in which case they are of little threat to much of anything other than some plants with deep roots.Your potatoes are still safe, since they would freeze to death in the winters where most potatoes are grown, and most people keep their homes below an acceptable temp for them to reside in doors.Theres a reason they live in the desert.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29893323</id>
	<title>"Naked" mole rat?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256665920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, the secret to cancer prevention is to get naked?</p><p>Excuse me, I have a new pickup line I need to try out...</p><p>Captcha: Polite</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , the secret to cancer prevention is to get naked ? Excuse me , I have a new pickup line I need to try out...Captcha : Polite</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, the secret to cancer prevention is to get naked?Excuse me, I have a new pickup line I need to try out...Captcha: Polite</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892339</id>
	<title>Intriguing.  What about virus resistance?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256655120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Given that the popular literature is telling us that many cancers are caused by virii, what is the resistance to virus infection by these cells relative to the mouse cells?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Given that the popular literature is telling us that many cancers are caused by virii , what is the resistance to virus infection by these cells relative to the mouse cells ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given that the popular literature is telling us that many cancers are caused by virii, what is the resistance to virus infection by these cells relative to the mouse cells?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29898429</id>
	<title>Re:Based on the picture</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1256749320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see you've never seen anyone <a href="http://slashdot.org/~mcgrew/journal/222855" title="slashdot.org">die of cancer.</a> [slashdot.org] It's a horrible way to die. And 50 is a damned short life these days; my grandmother was twice that old when she died.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see you 've never seen anyone die of cancer .
[ slashdot.org ] It 's a horrible way to die .
And 50 is a damned short life these days ; my grandmother was twice that old when she died .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see you've never seen anyone die of cancer.
[slashdot.org] It's a horrible way to die.
And 50 is a damned short life these days; my grandmother was twice that old when she died.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892485</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892545</id>
	<title>It's only fair</title>
	<author>unitron</author>
	<datestamp>1256657040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They already look the way that they do *and* they're called naked mole rats.</p><p>On top of that they should get cancer?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They already look the way that they do * and * they 're called naked mole rats.On top of that they should get cancer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They already look the way that they do *and* they're called naked mole rats.On top of that they should get cancer?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29894259</id>
	<title>Re:Naked Mole Rats</title>
	<author>MistrX</author>
	<datestamp>1256721780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I, for one, welcome our future naked overlords.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I , for one , welcome our future naked overlords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, for one, welcome our future naked overlords.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892479</id>
	<title>"Cancer-proof" is a bit of a misnomer</title>
	<author>toppavak</author>
	<datestamp>1256656500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>All organisms have these kinds of tumor suppressor genes whether they act to inhibit cell proliferation or promote cell death, in fact most cancers have to have mutations that inhibit these suppressor genes as well as mutations which enhance genes that promote cell growth and proliferation. What would be more interesting than simply identifying the suppressor gene(s) believed to be the cause of the absence of naked mole rat cancers would be in identifying the mechanisms that have protected that(those) gene(s). I wonder if the researchers in question also considered alternate explanations for the absence of cancers in naked mole rats- its very possible that their subterranean environment simply doesn't contain as many mutagens as we are exposed to and as such having a naked mole rat with a mutated (inhibited) tumor suppressor AND a mutated (enhanced) tumor promoter is such a rarity that we simply haven't been able to find one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All organisms have these kinds of tumor suppressor genes whether they act to inhibit cell proliferation or promote cell death , in fact most cancers have to have mutations that inhibit these suppressor genes as well as mutations which enhance genes that promote cell growth and proliferation .
What would be more interesting than simply identifying the suppressor gene ( s ) believed to be the cause of the absence of naked mole rat cancers would be in identifying the mechanisms that have protected that ( those ) gene ( s ) .
I wonder if the researchers in question also considered alternate explanations for the absence of cancers in naked mole rats- its very possible that their subterranean environment simply does n't contain as many mutagens as we are exposed to and as such having a naked mole rat with a mutated ( inhibited ) tumor suppressor AND a mutated ( enhanced ) tumor promoter is such a rarity that we simply have n't been able to find one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All organisms have these kinds of tumor suppressor genes whether they act to inhibit cell proliferation or promote cell death, in fact most cancers have to have mutations that inhibit these suppressor genes as well as mutations which enhance genes that promote cell growth and proliferation.
What would be more interesting than simply identifying the suppressor gene(s) believed to be the cause of the absence of naked mole rat cancers would be in identifying the mechanisms that have protected that(those) gene(s).
I wonder if the researchers in question also considered alternate explanations for the absence of cancers in naked mole rats- its very possible that their subterranean environment simply doesn't contain as many mutagens as we are exposed to and as such having a naked mole rat with a mutated (inhibited) tumor suppressor AND a mutated (enhanced) tumor promoter is such a rarity that we simply haven't been able to find one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29896693</id>
	<title>while this discovery is fascinating</title>
	<author>nimbius</author>
	<datestamp>1256742300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i cant help but think its marred by the overtone that most americans could engage in some very simple lifestyle changes to avoid cancer.<br> <br>
quit eating so much red meat, cut back on a diet of food enriched with various synthetic hormones, and eat more fruits and veggies.  2-4 cups of green or white tea a day would be an excellent start as well.  Go for a run.  But no, any suggestion to the contrary of a full rack of babybacks and a milkshake followed up with a slice of cheesecake and a cigarette afterwards is touted as "taking away my freedom!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>i cant help but think its marred by the overtone that most americans could engage in some very simple lifestyle changes to avoid cancer .
quit eating so much red meat , cut back on a diet of food enriched with various synthetic hormones , and eat more fruits and veggies .
2-4 cups of green or white tea a day would be an excellent start as well .
Go for a run .
But no , any suggestion to the contrary of a full rack of babybacks and a milkshake followed up with a slice of cheesecake and a cigarette afterwards is touted as " taking away my freedom !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i cant help but think its marred by the overtone that most americans could engage in some very simple lifestyle changes to avoid cancer.
quit eating so much red meat, cut back on a diet of food enriched with various synthetic hormones, and eat more fruits and veggies.
2-4 cups of green or white tea a day would be an excellent start as well.
Go for a run.
But no, any suggestion to the contrary of a full rack of babybacks and a milkshake followed up with a slice of cheesecake and a cigarette afterwards is touted as "taking away my freedom!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29908487</id>
	<title>Cancer proof rats</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256820240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow! After we all die of cancer, the rats can take over. Oh wait, they're in Washington and have already done so!! That means the cancer fighting drugs for us humans will be too expensive....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow !
After we all die of cancer , the rats can take over .
Oh wait , they 're in Washington and have already done so ! !
That means the cancer fighting drugs for us humans will be too expensive... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow!
After we all die of cancer, the rats can take over.
Oh wait, they're in Washington and have already done so!!
That means the cancer fighting drugs for us humans will be too expensive....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892511</id>
	<title>implications for SENS?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256656800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>oh yah? i saw that early today or yesturday. but don't hate on me for that plz

nice though... interesting...

i wonder how this relates to SENS?????</htmltext>
<tokenext>oh yah ?
i saw that early today or yesturday .
but do n't hate on me for that plz nice though... interesting.. . i wonder how this relates to SENS ? ? ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>oh yah?
i saw that early today or yesturday.
but don't hate on me for that plz

nice though... interesting...

i wonder how this relates to SENS????
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892455</id>
	<title>Now It All Makes Sense</title>
	<author>nz17</author>
	<datestamp>1256656320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Resistant, nay, impervious to cancer? So that's the sitch <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim\_Possible" title="wikipedia.org">she was always talking about!</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Resistant , nay , impervious to cancer ?
So that 's the sitch she was always talking about !
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Resistant, nay, impervious to cancer?
So that's the sitch she was always talking about!
[wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29894825</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256730120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cut him some slack, he got "cold blooded" and "immune" from the news article he linked. If you have a problem with word usage, you may want to direct it towards the media...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cut him some slack , he got " cold blooded " and " immune " from the news article he linked .
If you have a problem with word usage , you may want to direct it towards the media.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cut him some slack, he got "cold blooded" and "immune" from the news article he linked.
If you have a problem with word usage, you may want to direct it towards the media...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29893015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892763</id>
	<title>Re:Naked mole rats are badasses.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256658840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Naked mole rats are badasses. Not only are they cold-blooded and eusocial, they are substantially immune to certain types of pain.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>And this is a good thing? Pain isn't an unwanted side-effect that evolution hasn't eliminated; <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6379795/" title="msn.com">it's a very valuable survival trait</a> [msn.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Naked mole rats are badasses .
Not only are they cold-blooded and eusocial , they are substantially immune to certain types of pain .
And this is a good thing ?
Pain is n't an unwanted side-effect that evolution has n't eliminated ; it 's a very valuable survival trait [ msn.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Naked mole rats are badasses.
Not only are they cold-blooded and eusocial, they are substantially immune to certain types of pain.
And this is a good thing?
Pain isn't an unwanted side-effect that evolution hasn't eliminated; it's a very valuable survival trait [msn.com].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892749</id>
	<title>Re:So what.</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1256658780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sprinkle Aspartame.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sprinkle Aspartame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sprinkle Aspartame.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29895529</id>
	<title>Re:Intriguing. What about virus resistance?</title>
	<author>smoker2</author>
	<datestamp>1256736480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I fail to see how a virus could cause cancer because the whole point of a virus is to reproduce. To do this it infects a cell, reproduces inside the cell until the cell dies and basically explodes, scattering the virus back into the wild where it infects more cells. Cancer does not suffer from cell death or explosion, in fact it is pretty much the opposite. If cells were exploding then the immune system would notice something going on, which in the case of cancer, it doesn't. So how does the virus spread if it's stuck inside a steadily growing cell ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I fail to see how a virus could cause cancer because the whole point of a virus is to reproduce .
To do this it infects a cell , reproduces inside the cell until the cell dies and basically explodes , scattering the virus back into the wild where it infects more cells .
Cancer does not suffer from cell death or explosion , in fact it is pretty much the opposite .
If cells were exploding then the immune system would notice something going on , which in the case of cancer , it does n't .
So how does the virus spread if it 's stuck inside a steadily growing cell ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fail to see how a virus could cause cancer because the whole point of a virus is to reproduce.
To do this it infects a cell, reproduces inside the cell until the cell dies and basically explodes, scattering the virus back into the wild where it infects more cells.
Cancer does not suffer from cell death or explosion, in fact it is pretty much the opposite.
If cells were exploding then the immune system would notice something going on, which in the case of cancer, it doesn't.
So how does the virus spread if it's stuck inside a steadily growing cell ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892631</id>
	<title>Re:So what.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256657820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, if we can just convince Big Tobacco that there's an untapped mole-rat market...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , if we can just convince Big Tobacco that there 's an untapped mole-rat market.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, if we can just convince Big Tobacco that there's an untapped mole-rat market...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29893117</id>
	<title>Re:Naked mole rats are badasses.</title>
	<author>Jeremi</author>
	<datestamp>1256662800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Plus, they can run as fast backwards as they can forwards, which just is awesome....</i></p><p>It's a bit less awe inspiring when you consider that turtles can do the same thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Plus , they can run as fast backwards as they can forwards , which just is awesome....It 's a bit less awe inspiring when you consider that turtles can do the same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plus, they can run as fast backwards as they can forwards, which just is awesome....It's a bit less awe inspiring when you consider that turtles can do the same thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892795</id>
	<title>Re:So what.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256659080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They colonized my bathroom, so I sprinkled Comet all around the walls.</p><p>A couple weeks later... still have mice droppings, but not more Comet.  These critters are plenty hungry and really tough!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They colonized my bathroom , so I sprinkled Comet all around the walls.A couple weeks later... still have mice droppings , but not more Comet .
These critters are plenty hungry and really tough !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They colonized my bathroom, so I sprinkled Comet all around the walls.A couple weeks later... still have mice droppings, but not more Comet.
These critters are plenty hungry and really tough!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892355</id>
	<title>So what.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256655180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not worried. I always use poison or traps anyway. You see, its just to difficult to reliably give them cancer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not worried .
I always use poison or traps anyway .
You see , its just to difficult to reliably give them cancer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not worried.
I always use poison or traps anyway.
You see, its just to difficult to reliably give them cancer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29899089</id>
	<title>Re:Naked Mole Rats</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256752200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They also regularly practice coprophagy, the reingestion of feces, which allows them to maximize their uptake of nutrients from their food.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They also regularly practice coprophagy , the reingestion of feces , which allows them to maximize their uptake of nutrients from their food .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They also regularly practice coprophagy, the reingestion of feces, which allows them to maximize their uptake of nutrients from their food.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29896497</id>
	<title>Re:Intriguing. What about virus resistance?</title>
	<author>growlingchaos</author>
	<datestamp>1256741520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The plural form of virus is "viri" not virii.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The plural form of virus is " viri " not virii .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The plural form of virus is "viri" not virii.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29908731</id>
	<title>and they've never even been to law school</title>
	<author>vaporland</author>
	<datestamp>1256823060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Amazing!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazing !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazing!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892505</id>
	<title>(Then gets attacked by naked mole rat)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256656680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rodents of Unusual Resistances? I don't think they exist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rodents of Unusual Resistances ?
I do n't think they exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rodents of Unusual Resistances?
I don't think they exist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892871</id>
	<title>Re:"Cancer-proof" is a bit of a misnomer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256659740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I wonder if the researchers in question also considered alternate explanations for the absence of cancers in naked mole rats- its very possible that their subterranean environment simply doesn't contain as many mutagens as we are exposed to and as such having a naked mole rat with a mutated (inhibited) tumor suppressor AND a mutated (enhanced) tumor promoter is such a rarity that we simply haven't been able to find one.</p></div></blockquote><p>It sounded like the researchers exposed the naked mole rat cells to the same mutagens as the mouse cells, so I don't think reduced radiation exposure could explain the differences. You're correct that "cancer-proof is a misnomer". The differences suggest that something lowers the probability that these cells become cancerous after exposure -- not that they are perfectly immune to the characteristic cell growth associated with cancer.</p><p>As someone pointed out, there are two interesting follow-up questions: what mechanism(s) protect the gene coding for this protein? How does the protein accomplish this feat?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if the researchers in question also considered alternate explanations for the absence of cancers in naked mole rats- its very possible that their subterranean environment simply does n't contain as many mutagens as we are exposed to and as such having a naked mole rat with a mutated ( inhibited ) tumor suppressor AND a mutated ( enhanced ) tumor promoter is such a rarity that we simply have n't been able to find one.It sounded like the researchers exposed the naked mole rat cells to the same mutagens as the mouse cells , so I do n't think reduced radiation exposure could explain the differences .
You 're correct that " cancer-proof is a misnomer " .
The differences suggest that something lowers the probability that these cells become cancerous after exposure -- not that they are perfectly immune to the characteristic cell growth associated with cancer.As someone pointed out , there are two interesting follow-up questions : what mechanism ( s ) protect the gene coding for this protein ?
How does the protein accomplish this feat ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if the researchers in question also considered alternate explanations for the absence of cancers in naked mole rats- its very possible that their subterranean environment simply doesn't contain as many mutagens as we are exposed to and as such having a naked mole rat with a mutated (inhibited) tumor suppressor AND a mutated (enhanced) tumor promoter is such a rarity that we simply haven't been able to find one.It sounded like the researchers exposed the naked mole rat cells to the same mutagens as the mouse cells, so I don't think reduced radiation exposure could explain the differences.
You're correct that "cancer-proof is a misnomer".
The differences suggest that something lowers the probability that these cells become cancerous after exposure -- not that they are perfectly immune to the characteristic cell growth associated with cancer.As someone pointed out, there are two interesting follow-up questions: what mechanism(s) protect the gene coding for this protein?
How does the protein accomplish this feat?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892479</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2051246_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29899089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892499
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2051246_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29893727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892373
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2051246_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29893161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892499
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2051246_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892763
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892373
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2051246_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29908731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892373
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2051246_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29901761
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892339
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2051246_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29898429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892485
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2051246_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892339
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2051246_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29894259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892499
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2051246_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2051246_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892479
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2051246_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29896497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892339
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2051246_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29894063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2051246_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29893601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892373
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2051246_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29898351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2051246_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29895529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892339
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2051246_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892339
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2051246_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29895039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2051246_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29893117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892373
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2051246_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2051246_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29898457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892373
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2051246_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2051246_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29893569
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2051246_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892373
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2051246_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29894825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29893015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892373
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2051246.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892455
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2051246.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892355
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29898351
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892795
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892749
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892631
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2051246.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892373
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29908731
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29893015
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29894825
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892843
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29893117
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29893727
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892707
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892763
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29893601
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29898457
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2051246.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29894573
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2051246.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892505
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2051246.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892339
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892495
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29901761
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29895529
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29896497
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892639
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892773
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892853
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2051246.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892335
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2051246.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892499
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29893161
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29894259
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29899089
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2051246.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892485
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29898429
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2051246.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892479
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892871
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2051246.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892511
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2051246.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29892915
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29895039
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29893569
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2051246.29894063
</commentlist>
</conversation>
