Could a genetic test on stool samples make colonoscopies unnecessary someday?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


Let’s be honest: nobody really wants to get a colonoscopy, even if the procedure is crucial in finding nascent tumors.  So, here’s hoping researchers working on less uncomfortable alternatives succeed.

One possibility comes from a group at Maastricht University Medical Center in the Netherlands , which reports in the latest Journal of the National Cancer Institute (JCNI) on a potential biomarker for colorectal cancer from cells contained in stool samples.

Headed by Manon von Engeland, the research group compared stool samples taken from subjects who had colorectal cancer with those from subjects who did not and found a significant difference in a gene called NDRG4.  


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


In particular, the difference lies in a region of NDRG4 called the promoter, which acts as a switch to turn on the gene. In cells collected from cancer patients, the promoter was highly methylated--it had many more chemical compounds called methyl groups attached to it--compared with those from non-cancer subjects.  

Methylation inhibits the promoter from activating the NDRG4 gene, which based on additional findings published in the paper, likely has a role in suppressing tumors. This difference led the scientists to conclude that high levels of NDRG4 methylation may flag colon cancer.

In an accompanying editorial for JCNI,Gad Rennert of Carmel Medical Center in Haifa , Israel , calls the findings promising, saying that the NDRG4 marker is more sensitive and specific than previously tested genetic markers. Family history plays a strong role in colorectal cancer, with many genes implicated in raising the risk, but NDRG4's role has not been previously studied.

Rennert goes on to say that a collection of biomarkers including NDRG4 may be the best approach to improving the technique’s precision.   Other groups, such as the diagnostic company Exact Sciences, are working on similar stool tests, too, focusing on different biomarkers.

However, as the National Cancer Institute (NCI) points out, more testing needs to be done to determine if biomarkers can detect precancerous cells as effectively as colonoscopies.   Removal of precancerous polyps is one of the best ways to avoid becoming one of 49,000 people in the U.S. who die each year from colon cancer, according to the NCI.

      

Image of the colonoscopy courtesy of leezsnow

via IstockPhoto

 

 

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe