Literature DB >> 21666415

Is carcinogenesis a form of speciation?

Peter Duesberg1, Daniele Mandrioli, Amanda McCormack, Joshua M Nicholson.   

Abstract

Since cancers have individual clonal karyotypes, are immortal and evolve from normal cells treated by carcinogens only after exceedingly long latencies of many months to decades-we deduce that carcinogenesis may be a form of speciation. This theory proposes that carcinogens initiate carcinogenesis by causing aneuploidy, i.e., losses or gains of chromosomes. Aneuploidy destabilizes the karyotype, because it unbalances thousands of collaborating genes including those that synthesize, segregate and repair chromosomes. Driven by this inherent instability aneuploid cells evolve ever-more random karyotypes automatically. Most of these perish, but a very small minority acquires reproductive autonomy-the primary characteristic of cancer cells and species. Selection for autonomy stabilizes new cancer species against the inherent instability of aneuploidy within specific margins of variation. The speciation theory explains five common characteristics of cancers: (1) species-specific autonomy; (2) karyotypic and phenotypic individuality; (3) flexibility by karyotypic variations within stable margins of autonomy; (4) immortality by replacing defective karyotypes from constitutive pools of competent variants or subspecies generated by this flexibility; and (5) long neoplastic latencies by the low probability that random karyotypic alterations generate new autonomous species. Moreover, the theory explains phylogenetic relations between cancers of the same tissue, because carcinogenesis is restricted by tissue-specific transcriptomes. The theory also solves paradoxes of other cancer theories. For example, "aneuploidy" of cancers is now said to be a "paradox" or "cancer's fatal flaw," because aneuploidy impairs normal growth and development. But if the "aneuploidies" of cancers are in effect the karyotypes of new species, this paradox is solved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21666415     DOI: 10.4161/cc.10.13.16352

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cell Cycle        ISSN: 1551-4005            Impact factor:   4.534


  40 in total

1.  From aneuploidy to cancer: the evolution of a new species?

Authors:  Samuel Knauss; Andreas Klein
Journal:  J Biosci       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 1.826

2.  Aneuploidy, TP53 mutation, and amplification of MYC correlate with increased intratumor heterogeneity and poor prognosis of breast cancer patients.

Authors:  Johanna Oltmann; Kerstin Heselmeyer-Haddad; Leanora S Hernandez; Rüdiger Meyer; Irianna Torres; Yue Hu; Natalie Doberstein; J Keith Killian; David Petersen; Yuelin Jack Zhu; Daniel C Edelman; Paul S Meltzer; Russell Schwartz; E Michael Gertz; Alejandro A Schäffer; Gert Auer; Jens K Habermann; Thomas Ried
Journal:  Genes Chromosomes Cancer       Date:  2018-01-09       Impact factor: 5.006

3.  What history tells us XXVIII. What is really new in the current evolutionary theory of cancer?

Authors:  Michel Morange
Journal:  J Biosci       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 1.826

Review 4.  Evaluating the mechanistic evidence and key data gaps in assessing the potential carcinogenicity of carbon nanotubes and nanofibers in humans.

Authors:  Eileen D Kuempel; Marie-Claude Jaurand; Peter Møller; Yasuo Morimoto; Norihiro Kobayashi; Kent E Pinkerton; Linda M Sargent; Roel C H Vermeulen; Bice Fubini; Agnes B Kane
Journal:  Crit Rev Toxicol       Date:  2016-08-18       Impact factor: 5.635

5.  The evolution of single cell-derived colorectal cancer cell lines is dominated by the continued selection of tumor-specific genomic imbalances, despite random chromosomal instability.

Authors:  Darawalee Wangsa; Rüdiger Braun; Madison Schiefer; Edward Michael Gertz; Daniel Bronder; Isabel Quintanilla; Hesed M Padilla-Nash; Irianna Torres; Cynthia Hunn; Lidia Warner; Floryne O Buishand; Yue Hu; Daniela Hirsch; Timo Gaiser; Jordi Camps; Russell Schwartz; Alejandro A Schäffer; Kerstin Heselmeyer-Haddad; Thomas Ried
Journal:  Carcinogenesis       Date:  2018-07-30       Impact factor: 4.944

Review 6.  Genetic diversity, inbreeding and cancer.

Authors:  Beata Ujvari; Marcel Klaassen; Nynke Raven; Tracey Russell; Marion Vittecoq; Rodrigo Hamede; Frédéric Thomas; Thomas Madsen
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2018-03-28       Impact factor: 5.349

7.  Whole chromosome gain does not in itself confer cancer-like chromosomal instability.

Authors:  Anders Valind; Yuesheng Jin; Bo Baldetorp; David Gisselsson
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-12-09       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Single-cell genetic analysis of ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer reveals enormous tumor heterogeneity yet conserved genomic imbalances and gain of MYC during progression.

Authors:  Kerstin Heselmeyer-Haddad; Lissa Y Berroa Garcia; Amanda Bradley; Clarymar Ortiz-Melendez; Woei-Jyh Lee; Rebecca Christensen; Sheila A Prindiville; Kathleen A Calzone; Peter W Soballe; Yue Hu; Salim A Chowdhury; Russell Schwartz; Alejandro A Schäffer; Thomas Ried
Journal:  Am J Pathol       Date:  2012-10-08       Impact factor: 4.307

9.  Restoration of wild-type p53 in drug-resistant mouse breast cancer cells leads to differential gene expression, but is not sufficient to overcome the malignant phenotype.

Authors:  Benjamin Gottschalk; Andreas Klein
Journal:  Mol Cell Biochem       Date:  2013-04-07       Impact factor: 3.396

10.  Reversal of aberrant cancer methylome and transcriptome upon direct reprogramming of lung cancer cells.

Authors:  Dashayini Mahalingam; Chiou Mee Kong; Jason Lai; Ling Lee Tay; Henry Yang; Xueying Wang
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2012-08-21       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.