The potential agent to inhibit the proliferation of cancer cells is considered to be the most important hallmark. That is why you have to check the effectiveness as the anti-cancer agent not under the confluent conditions.

I fully disagree with your response Go!

The proliferation rate of cancer cells is not at all "one of the most important hallmark" of cancers.

Robert 

I think the most important would be the ability of a compound to affect survival pathway of a cancer (affecting apoptotic pathway genes/ proteins) effectively without any or as little as possible effect on normal cells rather than just proliferation. Total elimination. Just my opinion.

An anticancer compound that will actually bring significant added value to the current chemotherapies for cancer patient is a compound that will erradicate the cancer stem cells, while as rightly emphasized by Reagan, being selective towards normal cells.

Best regards

Robert

I would say that from a very very very basic philosophical point of view ...:

* "cancer molecules" are those molecules that are modified into toxins according for examples to environmental reasons. Such "cancer molecules", which are "toxic chemicals", could somewhat relate to "cancer cells", which are "cellular toxins" also somewhere modified by "environmental pressures";

* "cancer atoms" could relate to the "atomic fission theory" ... and the atomic bumb ...

Now, from a still very very very lower philosophical level (and I apologize for this ...):

* "cancer molecules" somewhere relate to "chemical chaos", and humans took some profit of this chemical chaos ... (the use of natural-derived metabolites to treat multiple diseases including cancer ...). This already happened several centuries ago ... (in fact at least two millenaries ago!);

* "cancer atoms" somewhere relate to "physical chaos", and humans took some profit of this physical chaos (nuclear energy for example).This already happened several decades ago ...;

* but ... humans did not (yet) take advantages from "cellular cancers" ...

Going lower and lower in very "flat phylosophy" (and I apologize once more for that!), humans are making amazing progresses each year about treating dismal diseases ... excepted about 50% of cancers ...

But what will happen to humanity once humans will cure cancer?

I am now going back on an exciting review about "mollusks against cancers"!!

Robert

In fact, "chaos" would the "missing link" between "chemical cancers", "physical cancers" and "cellular cancers" ... with human taking some benefits from "chaos" over centuries ...

Robert

Anticancer activity means anti cellular activity means it should be toxic to cells. Now, the toxicity of compounds depends upon its interactive nature to cellular components. DNA interactive agent can be most toxic. However, since most of the cancer have high repair capacity targeting cellular events are more fruitful.

Now for compounds..it should have a group to interact with DNA and a group to inhibit XXXylation.

enjoy

Not at all Krishnanand!

A compound to be an anticancer agent must not be in any case toxic for cells. These are a subgroup, and only a subgroup, of anticancer compounds named cytotoxic anticancer drugs.

All the best

Robert

Dear Reinert,

Thanks to the RG community, I can provide you with the attached articles ...

have a good reading!

Robert

Dear Joe,

As a Belgian Citizen with a more than poor English repertoire, I have more than great difficulties in reconciling your "response" (comments?) with Reinert comment / response ...

Best regards

Robert

PS for Reinert: I do not share at "110%" your opinion ... Because I can indeed find very interesting infos on the web, but these sites do not provide me with more than interesting articles as do RG members (I must admit not always as I already emphaized it ...)!!

Thank you Joe!

Robert