Posted on 02/08/2011 5:47:18 AM PST by decimon
TEMPE, Ariz. – Despite decades of research and billions of dollars, cancer remains a major killer, with an uncanny ability to evade both the body's defenses and medical intervention. Now an Arizona State University scientist believes he has an explanation.
"Cancer is not a random bunch of selfish rogue cells behaving badly, but a highly-efficient pre-programmed response to stress, honed by a long period of evolution," claims professor Paul Davies, director of the BEYOND Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science at ASU and principal investigator of a major research program funded by the National Cancer Institute designed to bring insights from physical science to the problem of cancer.
In a paper published online Feb. 7 in the UK Institute of Physics journal Physical Biology, Davies and Charles Lineweaver from the Australian National University draw on their backgrounds in astrobiology to explain why cancer cells deploy so many clever tricks in such a coherent and organized way.
They say it's because cancer revisits tried-and-tested genetic pathways going back a billion years, to the time when loose collections of cells began cooperating in the lead-up to fully developed multicellular life. Dubbed by the authors "Metazoa 1.0," these early assemblages fell short of the full cell and organ differentiation associated with modern multicellular organisms – like humans.
But according to Davies and Lineweaver, the genes for the early, looser assemblages – Metazoa 1.0 – are still there, forming an efficient toolkit. Normally it is kept locked, suppressed by the machinery of later genes used for more sophisticated body plans. If something springs the lock, the ancient genes systematically roll out the many traits that make cancer such a resilient form of life – and such a formidable adversary.
"Tumors are a re-emergence of our inner Metazoan 1.0, a throwback to an ancient world when multicellular life was simpler," says Davies. "In that sense, cancer is an accident waiting to happen."
If Davies and Lineweaver are correct, then the genomes of the simplest multicellular organisms will hide clues to the way that cancer evades control by the body and develops resistance to chemotherapy. And their approach suggests that a limited number of genetic pathways are favored by cells as they become progressively genetically unstable and malignant, implying that cancer could be manageable by a finite suite of drugs in the coming era of personalized medicine.
"Our new model should give oncologists new hope because cancer is a limited and ultimately predictable atavistic adversary," says Lineweaver. "Cancer is not going anywhere evolutionarily; it just starts up in a new patient the way it started up in the previous one."
The authors also believe that the study of cancer can inform astrobiology. "It's not a one-way street," says Davies. "Cancer can give us important clues about the nature and history of life itself."
###
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY (www.asu.edu) BEYOND: Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science (http://beyond.asu.edu) Center for the Convergence of Physical Science and Cancer Biology (http://cancer-insights.asu.edu) Tempe, Arizona USA
Ping
I see similarity in the modern approach to evolution. Everything that has happened over the course of billions of years is because of evolution. It is the magic explanation for everything. And it's all good. Cancer? That's evolution! And it's a toolkit! We're lucky to have it! Really!
Pollyanna science -- they've hitched their wagon to evolution and now must constantly invent evidence that it is real and good.
Interesting, but I don’t follow the part where he says cancer is a “preprogrammed response to stress”. Does that mean that those of us who don’t stress don’t get cancer? Everything I’ve read previously suggest that cancer occurs due to genetic mistakes in the reproduction of cells, leading to cancer cells that reproduce out of control. Kind of like what might happen if you make a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy..... If the copy process is sloppy, eventually you may end up with a copy that is a transmogrification of the original.
Stress is a generic term in biology.
Stress can be heat, cold, mutagens, redox, too little nutrient, too much nutrient, too little oxygen or too much, high or low osmolality, etc.
They aren’t referring to the emotion elicited by an Obama speech.
The “coming era of personalized medicine” and obamacare are diametrically opposed.
I personally believe that Genesis is true but I also believe in an old Earth. I know it’s complicated but it makes sense to me.
As far as using the theories of evolution for the study of biology, well, it is a successful approach in general. When God created man and every other creature, he used the same tool box.
Let me put it in non-evolutionary terms ~ GOD created cancer. Now live with it!
See, a real "Creationist" point of view in that ~ you don't need MUTATIONS ~ it was there all along!
Me too. All you have to know is that God's days are probably VERY long.
“osmolality”
I’d add that to my working vocabulary but I’d never be sure when it should be ‘osmolality’ and when it should be ‘osmolarity.’
It's those meetings.
Sorry, osmolality is the term used when measuring osmolarity in body fluids such as blood.
I can’t keep them straight either, I had to do a quick google search to see which was which.
First creationists say evolution has no place in modern science, predicts nothing, helps nothing. Then when evolution is used to try to cure disease you say it's suddenly a magic explanation for everything. News flash, evolution is widely used in science. Most successful theories are.
I think you would be hard-pressed to find a Creationist who believed that. I do not believe in evolution -- but I recognize that it is the dominant paradigm in biology today. I don't want to force it out of the classroom. I don't want to force it out of the textbooks.
All I want is for discussions of science to include additional discussion from those of us who feel that evolution is a flawed theory.
It is the evolutionist who feel that counter-arguments have "no place in modern science". What you are engaged in, would be considered "projection" by a psychologist.
I was expecting an discernible relation to osmosis. Didn’t see that in the definition.
Osmolarity is the measure of solute concentration, defined as the number of osmoles (Osm) of solute per liter (L) of solution (osmol/L or Osm/L).
Osmolality is a measure of the osmoles of solute per kilogram of solvent (osmol/kg or Osm/kg).
I see evolution as a theory that has served us well but that will in time be superceded. Charles Darwin will be wrong in the sense that Isaac Newton was wrong.
Osmolality is a measure of the osmoles of solute per kilogram of solvent (osmol/kg or Osm/kg).
This is all part of the conspiracy to make me feel stupid. ;-)
All scientific theories are flawed or limited in some way.
It is the evolutionist who feel that counter-arguments have "no place in modern science".
Counter-arguments are fine, they've been going on for over 150 years, and evolution still stands as the dominant scientific theory.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.