If they do, are we trying to activate them- that is, make them burst specifically in those cells? Wouldn't that be the best way to treat cancer?

What would it take? We would just need to activate the right genes, right?
Sounds easy. But how hard is it to make it happen? How hard is it to create a vaccine that activates the lysosomes in those cells?

I think the difficulty is finding the cancer causing cells.

I really think we need to understand the human genome better in order to sort out spefic oncogenes in cancer cells in order to identify them from the many healthy cells in a host. While killing the cells isn't so hard, finding and isolating them is the difficulty.

How is that so? Aren't they composed of different proteins, carbohydrates and phospholipids? Well, maybe not phospholipids, but the cells' id from the carbohydrates should give it away, I would guess. Also, there isn't a real need for isolation. In the same way we lose our tails and the stuff on our fingers before we are born, we could program our bodies to activate the cancerous cells' lysosomes.

So it should be something like that. The substance or gene that activate the lysosomes would be engulfed inside a membrane which would be able to recognize the carbohydrates that constitutes the cancerous cells' id. If we could discover which mutations happen and find out the cancerous' cell DNA, we could probably identify their carbohydrates' id....

How is that so? Aren't they composed of different proteins, carbohydrates and phospholipids? Well, maybe not phospholipids, but the cells' id from the carbohydrates should give it away, I would guess. Also, there isn't a real need for isolation. In the same way we lose our tails and the stuff on our fingers before we are born, we could program our bodies to activate the cancerous cells' lysosomes.

So it should be something like that. The substance or gene that activate the lysosomes would be engulfed inside a membrane which would be able to recognize the carbohydrates that constitutes the cancerous cells' id. If we could discover which mutations happen and find out the cancerous' cell DNA, we could probably identify their carbohydrates' id....

No, they are not different. Not in such a way that they can be distinguished from other cells in the body. As far as I'm aware, the cancer cells retain their differentiation even after metastasis. That is, if you have liver cancer that metastasizes, you will have liver cells forming a tumour wherever it next sets up camp.

The genes that make a cell cancerous are not ones that code for surface proteins or glycoproteins. They are ones that code for cell division and/or growth regulation (in general). When these regulatory genes mutate and become less effective, then the cell can grow and divide at a rate higher than what it is supposed to, and a tumour forms.

Which genes are those?

There are many. Myc is one of them, as are p53, Ras, fos. Potentially any gene responsible for the regulation of either cell growth or cell division. Here's a link with a list of some more, and their normal roles in the cell, http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/cancgene.html.

Well, that’s not completely true. In order to progress to the metastatic phase, many cancer cells alter their expression of cell surface receptors. For instance, down-regulation of cadherins enables the cells to lose their cell-cell adhesion, and up-regulation of integrins enables the cells to enter and leave the bloodstream through endothelial tight junctions. Alteration of cytoskeletal components is another hallmark of cancerous cells.<P>

Does the alteration of the surface proteins create a viable means of identification of the cancerous cells though? For some reason, I am under the impression that the main difficulty with treating cancer is proper methods of targeting the cancer cells only. I was also completely ignoring the mutations leading to metastasis to keep it simple, but I suppose that in omitting that I am also omitting a very important part of the problem.

I only have a very general understanding of cancer, and it has been some time (relatively) since I learned about it.

Not really. When it comes to identifying the locations of secondary tumors (metastases), more often than not it is markers of the original cell type that reveal of locations.

Indeed. Your impression is 100% accurate.

Yeah, but I was being nit-picky (as per usual).

Of course, tumors can be life threatening without ever becoming metastatic.<P>

Being nit-picky isn't all that bad. I should have included all the information, specifically since it was pertaining to what TruthSeeker had originally asked. I guess I was being lazy.
There wasn't a doubt in my mind.