<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_16_016246</id>
	<title>Golden Nanocages To Put the Heat On Cancer Cells</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1268760600000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>ElectricSteve writes <i>"Researchers have been searching for a highly targeted medical treatment that attacks cancer cells but leaves healthy tissue alone. The approach taken by scientists at Washington University in St. Louis is to use 'gold nanocages' that, when injected, selectively accumulate in tumors. When the tumors are later bathed in laser light, the surrounding tissue is barely warmed, but the <a href="http://www.gizmag.com/gold-nanocages-cancer-photothermal-treatment/14512/">nanocages convert light to heat, killing the malignant cells</a>. ... Although the tumors took up enough gold nanocages to give them a black cast, only 6 percent of the injected particles accumulated at the tumor site. They would like that number to be closer to 40 percent so that fewer particles would have to be injected. They plan to attach tailor-made ligands to the nanocages that recognize and lock onto receptors on the surface of the tumor cells. ... The scientists at WUSTL have just received a five-year, $2.1M grant from the National Cancer Institute to continue their work with photothermal therapy."</i> Note that Gizmag features a stupid Subscribe nag that covers your screen after about a minute; sounds like a job for NoScript. Last year we discussed somewhat similar research using <a href="//science.slashdot.org/story/09/10/10/009257/Nanomedicine-Kills-Brain-Cancer-Cells">titanium dioxide nanoparticles</a> to target a particular kind of brain cancer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>ElectricSteve writes " Researchers have been searching for a highly targeted medical treatment that attacks cancer cells but leaves healthy tissue alone .
The approach taken by scientists at Washington University in St. Louis is to use 'gold nanocages ' that , when injected , selectively accumulate in tumors .
When the tumors are later bathed in laser light , the surrounding tissue is barely warmed , but the nanocages convert light to heat , killing the malignant cells .
... Although the tumors took up enough gold nanocages to give them a black cast , only 6 percent of the injected particles accumulated at the tumor site .
They would like that number to be closer to 40 percent so that fewer particles would have to be injected .
They plan to attach tailor-made ligands to the nanocages that recognize and lock onto receptors on the surface of the tumor cells .
... The scientists at WUSTL have just received a five-year , $ 2.1M grant from the National Cancer Institute to continue their work with photothermal therapy .
" Note that Gizmag features a stupid Subscribe nag that covers your screen after about a minute ; sounds like a job for NoScript .
Last year we discussed somewhat similar research using titanium dioxide nanoparticles to target a particular kind of brain cancer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ElectricSteve writes "Researchers have been searching for a highly targeted medical treatment that attacks cancer cells but leaves healthy tissue alone.
The approach taken by scientists at Washington University in St. Louis is to use 'gold nanocages' that, when injected, selectively accumulate in tumors.
When the tumors are later bathed in laser light, the surrounding tissue is barely warmed, but the nanocages convert light to heat, killing the malignant cells.
... Although the tumors took up enough gold nanocages to give them a black cast, only 6 percent of the injected particles accumulated at the tumor site.
They would like that number to be closer to 40 percent so that fewer particles would have to be injected.
They plan to attach tailor-made ligands to the nanocages that recognize and lock onto receptors on the surface of the tumor cells.
... The scientists at WUSTL have just received a five-year, $2.1M grant from the National Cancer Institute to continue their work with photothermal therapy.
" Note that Gizmag features a stupid Subscribe nag that covers your screen after about a minute; sounds like a job for NoScript.
Last year we discussed somewhat similar research using titanium dioxide nanoparticles to target a particular kind of brain cancer.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492196</id>
	<title>Gold cure sickness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268678040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So gold and money cure sickness. That's a news!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So gold and money cure sickness .
That 's a news !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So gold and money cure sickness.
That's a news!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492354</id>
	<title>Re:and end to cancer in our life time</title>
	<author>VeasMKII</author>
	<datestamp>1268680140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cancer is actually a biological age limitation. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomere" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomere</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cancer is actually a biological age limitation .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomere [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cancer is actually a biological age limitation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomere [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492564</id>
	<title>Don't get your hopes up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268770980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The cancer industry has no incentive to find a cancer cure. Why shut off the billion dollar money spigot? If NCI invested in it I have my doubts it's as promising as it's touted. Just like the titanium treatment that preceded it. The real cures exist but are suppressed and their discoverers persecuted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The cancer industry has no incentive to find a cancer cure .
Why shut off the billion dollar money spigot ?
If NCI invested in it I have my doubts it 's as promising as it 's touted .
Just like the titanium treatment that preceded it .
The real cures exist but are suppressed and their discoverers persecuted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cancer industry has no incentive to find a cancer cure.
Why shut off the billion dollar money spigot?
If NCI invested in it I have my doubts it's as promising as it's touted.
Just like the titanium treatment that preceded it.
The real cures exist but are suppressed and their discoverers persecuted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31493420</id>
	<title>Re:What about the remaining 94\%?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268741520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the University's own <a href="http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/20401.aspx" title="wustl.edu" rel="nofollow">press release</a> [wustl.edu]:</p><p>"&ldquo;If we put bare nanoparticles into your body,&rdquo; says Xia, &ldquo;proteins would deposit on the particles, and they would be captured by the immune system and dragged out of the bloodstream into the liver or spleen.&rdquo;</p><p>To prevent this, the lab coated the nanocages with a layer of PEG, a nontoxic chemical most people have encountered in the form of the laxatives GoLyTELY or MiraLAX. PEG resists the adsorption of proteins, in effect disguising the nanoparticles so that the immune system cannot recognize them.</p><p>Instead of being swept from the bloodstream, the disguised particles circulate long enough to accumulate in tumors."</p><p>They keep calling it "passive" targeting so I take it there's no specific mechanism:  cells generally take up the particles (somehow) but because tumours try to maximise the blood flow they receive they get a bigger dose of blood-borne gold.  So the other 94\% could have still been floating around in the blood.</p><p>(I can't get at the actual article, but if anyone has a subscription to <i>Small</i> and can read it <a href="http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123319468/abstract" title="wiley.com" rel="nofollow">here</a> [wiley.com] feel free to enlighten us if they mention where the rest went)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the University 's own press release [ wustl.edu ] : "    If we put bare nanoparticles into your body ,    says Xia ,    proteins would deposit on the particles , and they would be captured by the immune system and dragged out of the bloodstream into the liver or spleen.    To prevent this , the lab coated the nanocages with a layer of PEG , a nontoxic chemical most people have encountered in the form of the laxatives GoLyTELY or MiraLAX .
PEG resists the adsorption of proteins , in effect disguising the nanoparticles so that the immune system can not recognize them.Instead of being swept from the bloodstream , the disguised particles circulate long enough to accumulate in tumors .
" They keep calling it " passive " targeting so I take it there 's no specific mechanism : cells generally take up the particles ( somehow ) but because tumours try to maximise the blood flow they receive they get a bigger dose of blood-borne gold .
So the other 94 \ % could have still been floating around in the blood .
( I ca n't get at the actual article , but if anyone has a subscription to Small and can read it here [ wiley.com ] feel free to enlighten us if they mention where the rest went )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the University's own press release [wustl.edu]:"“If we put bare nanoparticles into your body,” says Xia, “proteins would deposit on the particles, and they would be captured by the immune system and dragged out of the bloodstream into the liver or spleen.”To prevent this, the lab coated the nanocages with a layer of PEG, a nontoxic chemical most people have encountered in the form of the laxatives GoLyTELY or MiraLAX.
PEG resists the adsorption of proteins, in effect disguising the nanoparticles so that the immune system cannot recognize them.Instead of being swept from the bloodstream, the disguised particles circulate long enough to accumulate in tumors.
"They keep calling it "passive" targeting so I take it there's no specific mechanism:  cells generally take up the particles (somehow) but because tumours try to maximise the blood flow they receive they get a bigger dose of blood-borne gold.
So the other 94\% could have still been floating around in the blood.
(I can't get at the actual article, but if anyone has a subscription to Small and can read it here [wiley.com] feel free to enlighten us if they mention where the rest went)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492540</id>
	<title>Re:What about the remaining 94\%?</title>
	<author>flyingfsck</author>
	<datestamp>1268770140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, considering that your body is hopefully a few orders of magnitude larger than the tumour...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , considering that your body is hopefully a few orders of magnitude larger than the tumour.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, considering that your body is hopefully a few orders of magnitude larger than the tumour...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492478</id>
	<title>What about the remaining 94\%?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268682360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>6\%? What happened with the remaining 94\%? Did they accumulate elsewhere (and then the whole thing is so far an epic fail)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>6 \ % ?
What happened with the remaining 94 \ % ?
Did they accumulate elsewhere ( and then the whole thing is so far an epic fail ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>6\%?
What happened with the remaining 94\%?
Did they accumulate elsewhere (and then the whole thing is so far an epic fail)?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31495478</id>
	<title>The other hand</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268753880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you can just zap the thing with a laser through the body to kill the tumor and not the surrounding tissue why would you go through the effort to cut it out of the person doing much more harm to surrounding tissue?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you can just zap the thing with a laser through the body to kill the tumor and not the surrounding tissue why would you go through the effort to cut it out of the person doing much more harm to surrounding tissue ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can just zap the thing with a laser through the body to kill the tumor and not the surrounding tissue why would you go through the effort to cut it out of the person doing much more harm to surrounding tissue?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31494710</id>
	<title>Gold Nanocages</title>
	<author>Anne\_Nonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268751240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why don't they just use regular nanocages with little Yves-Saint-Laurent logos on them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't they just use regular nanocages with little Yves-Saint-Laurent logos on them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't they just use regular nanocages with little Yves-Saint-Laurent logos on them?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492234</id>
	<title>Everything old is new again</title>
	<author>Pareto Efficient</author>
	<datestamp>1268678580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This reminds me of reading about the middle ages practice of the wealthy eating powdered precious and semi precious metals and gemstones to cure ailments.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This reminds me of reading about the middle ages practice of the wealthy eating powdered precious and semi precious metals and gemstones to cure ailments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This reminds me of reading about the middle ages practice of the wealthy eating powdered precious and semi precious metals and gemstones to cure ailments.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492562</id>
	<title>Re:and end to cancer in our life time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268770800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to agree. Partly due to the overwhelming evidence that shows you are. Partly from what my Oncologist has told me. The main thing to take away from over 50+ years of research- don't treat all cancers alike.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to agree .
Partly due to the overwhelming evidence that shows you are .
Partly from what my Oncologist has told me .
The main thing to take away from over 50 + years of research- do n't treat all cancers alike .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to agree.
Partly due to the overwhelming evidence that shows you are.
Partly from what my Oncologist has told me.
The main thing to take away from over 50+ years of research- don't treat all cancers alike.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31494894</id>
	<title>Re:Gold cure sickness</title>
	<author>operagost</author>
	<datestamp>1268751840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Food and clothing have also been for people with money.  As soon as you decide that something is a right, and it's OK to allow the state to take things from innocent people to give it to others, you might as well go all in.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Food and clothing have also been for people with money .
As soon as you decide that something is a right , and it 's OK to allow the state to take things from innocent people to give it to others , you might as well go all in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Food and clothing have also been for people with money.
As soon as you decide that something is a right, and it's OK to allow the state to take things from innocent people to give it to others, you might as well go all in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492674</id>
	<title>Stupid question</title>
	<author>localoptimum</author>
	<datestamp>1268730120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you can irradiate it with a laser then you can see it.  So why not just cut the bastard out?  Or hit it with an ion beam which does much more damage than a laser and is just as selective as the gold nanocage method?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you can irradiate it with a laser then you can see it .
So why not just cut the bastard out ?
Or hit it with an ion beam which does much more damage than a laser and is just as selective as the gold nanocage method ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can irradiate it with a laser then you can see it.
So why not just cut the bastard out?
Or hit it with an ion beam which does much more damage than a laser and is just as selective as the gold nanocage method?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31520224</id>
	<title>Dancing mushroom</title>
	<author>davro</author>
	<datestamp>1268907420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What about the Japanese maitake mushroom ?

<a href="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi\_m0NAH/is\_6\_31/ai\_80088291/" title="findarticles.com" rel="nofollow">http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi\_m0NAH/is\_6\_31/ai\_80088291/</a> [findarticles.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about the Japanese maitake mushroom ?
http : //findarticles.com/p/articles/mi \ _m0NAH/is \ _6 \ _31/ai \ _80088291/ [ findarticles.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about the Japanese maitake mushroom ?
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi\_m0NAH/is\_6\_31/ai\_80088291/ [findarticles.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31493660</id>
	<title>Re:What about the remaining 94\%?</title>
	<author>Ginger Unicorn</author>
	<datestamp>1268744400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>presumably the procedure is inherently lossy, and 40\% is the most efficient trade off between effort and effect.</htmltext>
<tokenext>presumably the procedure is inherently lossy , and 40 \ % is the most efficient trade off between effort and effect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>presumably the procedure is inherently lossy, and 40\% is the most efficient trade off between effort and effect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31493736</id>
	<title>Old news is old</title>
	<author>RichiH</author>
	<datestamp>1268745660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They have been researching this for \_years\_. The grant may be news, granted. But the technique itself?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They have been researching this for \ _years \ _ .
The grant may be news , granted .
But the technique itself ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have been researching this for \_years\_.
The grant may be news, granted.
But the technique itself?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492514</id>
	<title>Re:What about the remaining 94\%?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268683140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More importantly, why would they only like the uptake to be 40\% and not 100\%.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>They would like that number to be closer to 40 percent</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>More importantly , why would they only like the uptake to be 40 \ % and not 100 \ % .They would like that number to be closer to 40 percent</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More importantly, why would they only like the uptake to be 40\% and not 100\%.They would like that number to be closer to 40 percent
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31493594</id>
	<title>Re:Don't get your hopes up</title>
	<author>paiute</author>
	<datestamp>1268743560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The cancer industry has no incentive to find a cancer cure.</p> </div><p>There was a cure for cancer to be announced at a press conference on the 54th floor of WTC 2 on 9/11/2001.</p><p>It was a graphic lesson to all who might be tempted to slip the leash of the cancer industry.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The cancer industry has no incentive to find a cancer cure .
There was a cure for cancer to be announced at a press conference on the 54th floor of WTC 2 on 9/11/2001.It was a graphic lesson to all who might be tempted to slip the leash of the cancer industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cancer industry has no incentive to find a cancer cure.
There was a cure for cancer to be announced at a press conference on the 54th floor of WTC 2 on 9/11/2001.It was a graphic lesson to all who might be tempted to slip the leash of the cancer industry.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492326</id>
	<title>Re:and end to cancer in our life time</title>
	<author>moteyalpha</author>
	<datestamp>1268679660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is a TED talk that is relevant.
<a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/catherine\_mohr\_surgery\_s\_past\_present\_and\_robotic\_future.html" title="ted.com">http://www.ted.com/talks/catherine\_mohr\_surgery\_s\_past\_present\_and\_robotic\_future.html</a> [ted.com]
Gene therapies are also advancing rapidly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a TED talk that is relevant .
http : //www.ted.com/talks/catherine \ _mohr \ _surgery \ _s \ _past \ _present \ _and \ _robotic \ _future.html [ ted.com ] Gene therapies are also advancing rapidly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a TED talk that is relevant.
http://www.ted.com/talks/catherine\_mohr\_surgery\_s\_past\_present\_and\_robotic\_future.html [ted.com]
Gene therapies are also advancing rapidly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492626</id>
	<title>Re:What about the remaining 94\%?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268772300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cash4Gold</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cash4Gold</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cash4Gold</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31493570</id>
	<title>Photodynamic therapy</title>
	<author>paiute</author>
	<datestamp>1268743200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is another form of photodynamic therapy</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photodynamic\_therapy" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photodynamic\_therapy</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>The problem has always to find a chemical which would accumulate in tumors and not in healthy tissures and would also respond to radiation by generating cell-killing chemicals. Not an easy couple of parameters to satisfy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is another form of photodynamic therapyhttp : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photodynamic \ _therapy [ wikipedia.org ] The problem has always to find a chemical which would accumulate in tumors and not in healthy tissures and would also respond to radiation by generating cell-killing chemicals .
Not an easy couple of parameters to satisfy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is another form of photodynamic therapyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photodynamic\_therapy [wikipedia.org]The problem has always to find a chemical which would accumulate in tumors and not in healthy tissures and would also respond to radiation by generating cell-killing chemicals.
Not an easy couple of parameters to satisfy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492484</id>
	<title>Re:Gold cure sickness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268682480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hope you're being sarcastic, 'cause health has ALWAYS been for people with money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope you 're being sarcastic , 'cause health has ALWAYS been for people with money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope you're being sarcastic, 'cause health has ALWAYS been for people with money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31493814</id>
	<title>Targeting is the big problem</title>
	<author>SlashBugs</author>
	<datestamp>1268746320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a cool variation on a basic idea that's been used before, and will make a great payload for cancer treatment. However, killing cancer cells is not all that difficult; rather <i>targeting</i> cancer cells is hard. It's all about the therapeutic index, i.e. the ratio of damage done to cancer cells against damage done to healthy tissue.<br> <br>

Talking about cancer as "a disease" is a big misnomer; at best it's a huge family of diseases (really nice explanation in <a href="http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1162" title="phdcomics.com">this comic</a> [phdcomics.com]). Patterns do emerge -- certain tissues tend to have similar patterns of gene expression between people and therefore tend to give rise to similar cancers -- but each cancer that arises comes about in a different way, and evolves in response to different selective pressures within the body. The biggest of these pressures are fairly obvious like the need for neutrients (so "successful" cancers are the ones that evolve the ability to encourage blood vessels to grow around them) and evading the immune system. So, almost by definition, the outside of a cancer cell is forced to look as similar as possible to the outside or a healthy cell in the same tissue, to avoid detection.<br> <br>

There are some exploitable <i>internal</i> differences. Most cancers (but by no means all, or even close to all) express hTERT, a gene responsible for repairing the telomeres, whose degradation would otherwise limit the cells' replication. So some researchers (including my former lab) are working on techniques to exploit that e.g. viruses that can only kill cells expressing hTERT. The downside is that some legitimate cells also express hTERT, most notably your stem cells (bone marrow, some other tissues).<br> <br>

Another popular method is just targeting all cells that are highly metabolically active. Cancer cells tend to be working unusually hard (most cells in your body just sit there gently ticking over most of the time), so some cancer therapies target any cells that are burning through a lot of glucose (e.g. radiolabelled glucose is used as a source for imaging techniques like Positron Emission Tomography) or that are doing a lot of DNA replication as part of cell division. Again, though, this targets many cells in your body which are working this hard as a normal part of their programmes.<br> <br>

So, yeah, this is a cool payload but targeting is the hard part. If we knew what ligands to tie these particles to for targeting and how to persuade these huge particles to move against a pressure gradient and through a dense, disorganised extra-cellular matrix, cancers wouldn't be half the problem that they actually are. We could be using targeted viruses (piece of piss to do if you know what you're targeting and the surrounding tissue isn't too dense), metal nanoparticles, targeted liposomes (little hollow balls of fat) containing toxins or toxin precursors, modified antibodies to alert the immune system to the cancer cells, etc, etc.<br> <br>

Curing a cancer would be pretty easy: throw enough researchers and resources at one patient's specific tumour and we'll come up with a damn fine treatment. But curing all cancers -- different tumours arising from different tissues in different patients -- is seriously hard. We'll see fantastic advances in treating specific cancer types, but I seriously doubt that "a cure for cancer" is possible within our lifetimes. Although, heh, if you prove me wrong I won't be too upset<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:).</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a cool variation on a basic idea that 's been used before , and will make a great payload for cancer treatment .
However , killing cancer cells is not all that difficult ; rather targeting cancer cells is hard .
It 's all about the therapeutic index , i.e .
the ratio of damage done to cancer cells against damage done to healthy tissue .
Talking about cancer as " a disease " is a big misnomer ; at best it 's a huge family of diseases ( really nice explanation in this comic [ phdcomics.com ] ) .
Patterns do emerge -- certain tissues tend to have similar patterns of gene expression between people and therefore tend to give rise to similar cancers -- but each cancer that arises comes about in a different way , and evolves in response to different selective pressures within the body .
The biggest of these pressures are fairly obvious like the need for neutrients ( so " successful " cancers are the ones that evolve the ability to encourage blood vessels to grow around them ) and evading the immune system .
So , almost by definition , the outside of a cancer cell is forced to look as similar as possible to the outside or a healthy cell in the same tissue , to avoid detection .
There are some exploitable internal differences .
Most cancers ( but by no means all , or even close to all ) express hTERT , a gene responsible for repairing the telomeres , whose degradation would otherwise limit the cells ' replication .
So some researchers ( including my former lab ) are working on techniques to exploit that e.g .
viruses that can only kill cells expressing hTERT .
The downside is that some legitimate cells also express hTERT , most notably your stem cells ( bone marrow , some other tissues ) .
Another popular method is just targeting all cells that are highly metabolically active .
Cancer cells tend to be working unusually hard ( most cells in your body just sit there gently ticking over most of the time ) , so some cancer therapies target any cells that are burning through a lot of glucose ( e.g .
radiolabelled glucose is used as a source for imaging techniques like Positron Emission Tomography ) or that are doing a lot of DNA replication as part of cell division .
Again , though , this targets many cells in your body which are working this hard as a normal part of their programmes .
So , yeah , this is a cool payload but targeting is the hard part .
If we knew what ligands to tie these particles to for targeting and how to persuade these huge particles to move against a pressure gradient and through a dense , disorganised extra-cellular matrix , cancers would n't be half the problem that they actually are .
We could be using targeted viruses ( piece of piss to do if you know what you 're targeting and the surrounding tissue is n't too dense ) , metal nanoparticles , targeted liposomes ( little hollow balls of fat ) containing toxins or toxin precursors , modified antibodies to alert the immune system to the cancer cells , etc , etc .
Curing a cancer would be pretty easy : throw enough researchers and resources at one patient 's specific tumour and we 'll come up with a damn fine treatment .
But curing all cancers -- different tumours arising from different tissues in different patients -- is seriously hard .
We 'll see fantastic advances in treating specific cancer types , but I seriously doubt that " a cure for cancer " is possible within our lifetimes .
Although , heh , if you prove me wrong I wo n't be too upset : ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a cool variation on a basic idea that's been used before, and will make a great payload for cancer treatment.
However, killing cancer cells is not all that difficult; rather targeting cancer cells is hard.
It's all about the therapeutic index, i.e.
the ratio of damage done to cancer cells against damage done to healthy tissue.
Talking about cancer as "a disease" is a big misnomer; at best it's a huge family of diseases (really nice explanation in this comic [phdcomics.com]).
Patterns do emerge -- certain tissues tend to have similar patterns of gene expression between people and therefore tend to give rise to similar cancers -- but each cancer that arises comes about in a different way, and evolves in response to different selective pressures within the body.
The biggest of these pressures are fairly obvious like the need for neutrients (so "successful" cancers are the ones that evolve the ability to encourage blood vessels to grow around them) and evading the immune system.
So, almost by definition, the outside of a cancer cell is forced to look as similar as possible to the outside or a healthy cell in the same tissue, to avoid detection.
There are some exploitable internal differences.
Most cancers (but by no means all, or even close to all) express hTERT, a gene responsible for repairing the telomeres, whose degradation would otherwise limit the cells' replication.
So some researchers (including my former lab) are working on techniques to exploit that e.g.
viruses that can only kill cells expressing hTERT.
The downside is that some legitimate cells also express hTERT, most notably your stem cells (bone marrow, some other tissues).
Another popular method is just targeting all cells that are highly metabolically active.
Cancer cells tend to be working unusually hard (most cells in your body just sit there gently ticking over most of the time), so some cancer therapies target any cells that are burning through a lot of glucose (e.g.
radiolabelled glucose is used as a source for imaging techniques like Positron Emission Tomography) or that are doing a lot of DNA replication as part of cell division.
Again, though, this targets many cells in your body which are working this hard as a normal part of their programmes.
So, yeah, this is a cool payload but targeting is the hard part.
If we knew what ligands to tie these particles to for targeting and how to persuade these huge particles to move against a pressure gradient and through a dense, disorganised extra-cellular matrix, cancers wouldn't be half the problem that they actually are.
We could be using targeted viruses (piece of piss to do if you know what you're targeting and the surrounding tissue isn't too dense), metal nanoparticles, targeted liposomes (little hollow balls of fat) containing toxins or toxin precursors, modified antibodies to alert the immune system to the cancer cells, etc, etc.
Curing a cancer would be pretty easy: throw enough researchers and resources at one patient's specific tumour and we'll come up with a damn fine treatment.
But curing all cancers -- different tumours arising from different tissues in different patients -- is seriously hard.
We'll see fantastic advances in treating specific cancer types, but I seriously doubt that "a cure for cancer" is possible within our lifetimes.
Although, heh, if you prove me wrong I won't be too upset :).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492532</id>
	<title>Gold and Arthritis - still used</title>
	<author>flyingfsck</author>
	<datestamp>1268769960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gold is still used to treat arthritis.  Since arthritis is a hodge podge of ailments it doesn't always work though.</p><p>However a doctor in Vancouver Canada said:</p><p>"Nothing works as well as gold, when gold works".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gold is still used to treat arthritis .
Since arthritis is a hodge podge of ailments it does n't always work though.However a doctor in Vancouver Canada said : " Nothing works as well as gold , when gold works " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gold is still used to treat arthritis.
Since arthritis is a hodge podge of ailments it doesn't always work though.However a doctor in Vancouver Canada said:"Nothing works as well as gold, when gold works".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492774</id>
	<title>sh17</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268732100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Blue, rubber are tied up in To them...then You don't nned to be fun. It used if you don't FUCKING USELESS</htmltext>
<tokenext>Blue , rubber are tied up in To them...then You do n't nned to be fun .
It used if you do n't FUCKING USELESS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blue, rubber are tied up in To them...then You don't nned to be fun.
It used if you don't FUCKING USELESS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31498618</id>
	<title>Brother of T</title>
	<author>Brother of T</author>
	<datestamp>1268765460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Doktors used to put those big-ass radiation pellets into your prostate.  NOW they put those LITTLE-ass radiation pellets into your prostate.  Better Living Thru Chemistry???</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Doktors used to put those big-ass radiation pellets into your prostate .
NOW they put those LITTLE-ass radiation pellets into your prostate .
Better Living Thru Chemistry ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Doktors used to put those big-ass radiation pellets into your prostate.
NOW they put those LITTLE-ass radiation pellets into your prostate.
Better Living Thru Chemistry??
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31493460</id>
	<title>Aha</title>
	<author>elmarkitse</author>
	<datestamp>1268741940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ok, I think I understand.  It's sort of a Golden Shower of nanocages that bathes the tumors in a reactive substance?  Fun.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , I think I understand .
It 's sort of a Golden Shower of nanocages that bathes the tumors in a reactive substance ?
Fun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, I think I understand.
It's sort of a Golden Shower of nanocages that bathes the tumors in a reactive substance?
Fun.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492392</id>
	<title>Similar to the Kanzius machine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268680800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is similar in principle to the <b> <a href="http://www.kanziuscancerresearch.com/" title="kanziuscan...search.com" rel="nofollow">Kanzius machine</a> [kanziuscan...search.com] </b> -- same idea, dope the cancer with some kind of radiation-sensitive material, then blast it. Kanzius wanted to use radio waves, but didn't know how to dope the cancer, but his oncologist knew a researcher at MD Anderson Cancer Center who was treating <b> <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2007/nov/02/nation/na-cancer2" title="latimes.com" rel="nofollow">Nobel Laureate Rick Smalley</a> [latimes.com] </b> -- one of the inventors of C-60, aka Buckminsterfullerene. Turns out that's a pretty good radiation target!</p><p>Sounds like these guys are on to the same basic concept with lasers and gold. Targeted doping of cancer cells seems like a very promising concept.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is similar in principle to the Kanzius machine [ kanziuscan...search.com ] -- same idea , dope the cancer with some kind of radiation-sensitive material , then blast it .
Kanzius wanted to use radio waves , but did n't know how to dope the cancer , but his oncologist knew a researcher at MD Anderson Cancer Center who was treating Nobel Laureate Rick Smalley [ latimes.com ] -- one of the inventors of C-60 , aka Buckminsterfullerene .
Turns out that 's a pretty good radiation target ! Sounds like these guys are on to the same basic concept with lasers and gold .
Targeted doping of cancer cells seems like a very promising concept .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is similar in principle to the  Kanzius machine [kanziuscan...search.com]  -- same idea, dope the cancer with some kind of radiation-sensitive material, then blast it.
Kanzius wanted to use radio waves, but didn't know how to dope the cancer, but his oncologist knew a researcher at MD Anderson Cancer Center who was treating  Nobel Laureate Rick Smalley [latimes.com]  -- one of the inventors of C-60, aka Buckminsterfullerene.
Turns out that's a pretty good radiation target!Sounds like these guys are on to the same basic concept with lasers and gold.
Targeted doping of cancer cells seems like a very promising concept.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492510</id>
	<title>Re:and end to cancer in our life time</title>
	<author>Asaf.Zamir</author>
	<datestamp>1268683080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We have already hit the biological age limitation a long time ago, every time we cure a disease that's suppose to kill someone.
Unless you are referring to a time where our bodies would actually fall apart which I think would be solved not too long from now
(parts of the DNA do have data referring to the "age" of the cells, as in, what generation are they, and it's being researched pretty heavily but it seems that not too long from now they'll find a way to stop the aging process completely).

How about that, living a couple of hundreds of years, now that would be a change in the human perspective.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We have already hit the biological age limitation a long time ago , every time we cure a disease that 's suppose to kill someone .
Unless you are referring to a time where our bodies would actually fall apart which I think would be solved not too long from now ( parts of the DNA do have data referring to the " age " of the cells , as in , what generation are they , and it 's being researched pretty heavily but it seems that not too long from now they 'll find a way to stop the aging process completely ) .
How about that , living a couple of hundreds of years , now that would be a change in the human perspective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have already hit the biological age limitation a long time ago, every time we cure a disease that's suppose to kill someone.
Unless you are referring to a time where our bodies would actually fall apart which I think would be solved not too long from now
(parts of the DNA do have data referring to the "age" of the cells, as in, what generation are they, and it's being researched pretty heavily but it seems that not too long from now they'll find a way to stop the aging process completely).
How about that, living a couple of hundreds of years, now that would be a change in the human perspective.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31493590</id>
	<title>wuarchive.wustle.du</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268743500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh how I miss you.</p><p>Sort of.</p><p><tt><br>guest@potato:~$ ftp wuarchive.wustl.edu<br>ftp: connect: Connection timed out<br>ftp&gt;<br></tt></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh how I miss you.Sort of.guest @ potato : ~ $ ftp wuarchive.wustl.eduftp : connect : Connection timed outftp &gt;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh how I miss you.Sort of.guest@potato:~$ ftp wuarchive.wustl.eduftp: connect: Connection timed outftp&gt;</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492276</id>
	<title>Re:and end to cancer in our life time</title>
	<author>CoolGopher</author>
	<datestamp>1268679180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....</p></div><p>I'd like to put this to the test, but first I will have to source some outside funding of mod points. It's all in the name of SCIENCE! =D</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you mod me down , I will become more powerful than you can imagine....I 'd like to put this to the test , but first I will have to source some outside funding of mod points .
It 's all in the name of SCIENCE !
= D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....I'd like to put this to the test, but first I will have to source some outside funding of mod points.
It's all in the name of SCIENCE!
=D
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492238</id>
	<title>and end to cancer in our life time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268678580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think we might actually see the end to cancer in our life time. only 50 years ago pretty much any cancer was a death sentence, but now if detected early they have 80\% and up 5 year survival rates with some kinds.<p>
of course with cancer gone we will see many more old age illnesses due to an unnaturally long life. it'd be a nice problem to have i guess, to have people live so long that we hit biological age limitations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think we might actually see the end to cancer in our life time .
only 50 years ago pretty much any cancer was a death sentence , but now if detected early they have 80 \ % and up 5 year survival rates with some kinds .
of course with cancer gone we will see many more old age illnesses due to an unnaturally long life .
it 'd be a nice problem to have i guess , to have people live so long that we hit biological age limitations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think we might actually see the end to cancer in our life time.
only 50 years ago pretty much any cancer was a death sentence, but now if detected early they have 80\% and up 5 year survival rates with some kinds.
of course with cancer gone we will see many more old age illnesses due to an unnaturally long life.
it'd be a nice problem to have i guess, to have people live so long that we hit biological age limitations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_016246_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_016246_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_016246_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31495478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_016246_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31493594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_016246_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31494894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_016246_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_016246_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31493660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_016246_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31493420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_016246_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_016246_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_016246_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_016246_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_016246_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_016246.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492484
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31494894
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_016246.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492532
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_016246.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31495478
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_016246.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31493460
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_016246.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31493814
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_016246.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492514
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31493660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31493420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492626
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_016246.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492392
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_016246.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492510
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_016246.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31492564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_016246.31493594
</commentlist>
</conversation>
