Talk:Survivin

Untitled
Is it really fair to say that inhibiting survivin is not a feasible goal for anticancer therapy? Aurora Kinase inhibitors (especially inhibitors of AurkB) would perform exactly this function by preventing phosphorylation of survivin, thus inhibiting survivin function in its mitotic capacity. Furthermore, just because a proposed therapy would likely damage healthy rapidly-dividing cells certainly has not been a historical reason to preclude its use. 5-FU for example has been highly successful, despite the fact that it prevents mitosis of virtually every cell in the body. In general, the toxicity profile for chemotherapeutics has been caegorically poor- a fact the FDA allows becasue the alternative is almost certain death by untreated cancer. I think the aside about inhibition of survivin not being a practical target should at least be referenced if not removed. Wingsfan6047 (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This page is badly written. The science reported is not terrible, in fact much of the results are expected, but it is also not well rooted in scientific literature. The comment about sensitizing cancer cells is a valid line of inquiry, but again, purely speculative in the case of survivin. -b —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.219.235.232 (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed info from Prostate Cancer subsection
The subsection on prostate cancer made reference to dihydrotestosterone being "an exogenous androgen" which is not correct; it is produced in the body from testosterone by the action of the enzyme 5-alpha reductase. Accordingly, I have removed the incorrect wording. Lumberjane Lilly (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)