Literature DB >> 28341421

Mutations, evolution and the central role of a self-defined fitness function in the initiation and progression of cancer.

Robert A Gatenby1, Joel Brown2.   

Abstract

The origin and progression of cancer is widely viewed as "somatic evolution" driven by the accumulation of random genetic changes. This theoretical model, however, neglects fundamental conditions for evolution by natural selection, which include competition for survival and a local environmental context. Recent observations that the mutational burden in different cancers can vary by 2 orders of magnitude and that multiple mutations, some of which are "oncogenic," are observed in normal tissue suggests these neglected Darwinian dynamics may play a critical role in modifying the evolutionary consequences of molecular events. Here we discuss evolutionary principles in normal tissue focusing on the dynamical tension between different evolutionary levels of selection. Normal somatic cells within metazoans do not ordinarily evolve because their survival and proliferation are governed by tissue signals and internal controls (e.g. telomere shortening) that maintain homeostatic function. The fitness of each cell is, thus, identical to the whole organism, which is the evolutionary level of selection. For a cell to evolve, it must acquire a self-defined fitness function so that its survival and proliferation is determined entirely by its own heritable phenotypic properties. Cells can develop independence from normal tissue control through randomly accumulating mutations that disrupt its ability to recognize or respond to all host signals. A self-defined fitness function can also be gained non-genetically when tissue control signals are lost due to injury, inflammation, or infection. Accumulating mutations in cells without a self-defined fitness function will produce no evolution - consistent with reports showing mutations, including some that would ordinarily be oncogenic, are present in cells from normal tissue. Furthermore, once evolution begins, Darwinian forces will promote mutations that increase fitness and eliminate those that do not. Thus, cancer cells will typically have a mutational burden similar to adjacent normal cells and many (perhaps most) mutations observed in cancer cells occurred prior to somatic evolution and may not contribute to the cell's malignant phenotype. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled: Evolutionary principles - heterogeneity in cancer?, edited by Dr. Robert A. Gatenby.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cancer evolution somatic mutations theory; Fitness function; Somatic evolution

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28341421      PMCID: PMC5441954          DOI: 10.1016/j.bbcan.2017.03.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biochim Biophys Acta Rev Cancer        ISSN: 0304-419X            Impact factor:   10.680


  31 in total

1.  Evolution of the individual.

Authors:  R E Michod
Journal:  Am Nat       Date:  1997-07       Impact factor: 3.926

Review 2.  Somatic Mutation Theory - Why it's Wrong for Most Cancers.

Authors:  Björn L D M Brücher; Ijaz S Jamall
Journal:  Cell Physiol Biochem       Date:  2016-05-03

Review 3.  Clonal evolution in cancer.

Authors:  Mel Greaves; Carlo C Maley
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2012-01-18       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  Loss of heterozygosity in normal tissue adjacent to breast carcinomas.

Authors:  G Deng; Y Lu; G Zlotnikov; A D Thor; H S Smith
Journal:  Science       Date:  1996-12-20       Impact factor: 47.728

5.  Cancer risk estimates for BRCA1 mutation carriers identified in a risk evaluation program.

Authors:  Marcia S Brose; Timothy R Rebbeck; Kathleen A Calzone; Jill E Stopfer; Katherine L Nathanson; Barbara L Weber
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2002-09-18       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 6.  The somatic mutation theory of cancer: growing problems with the paradigm?

Authors:  Ana M Soto; Carlos Sonnenschein
Journal:  Bioessays       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 4.345

7.  The landscape of somatic mutations in protein coding genes in apparently benign human tissues carries signatures of relaxed purifying selection.

Authors:  Vinod Kumar Yadav; James DeGregori; Subhajyoti De
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2016-02-15       Impact factor: 16.971

Review 8.  Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation.

Authors:  Douglas Hanahan; Robert A Weinberg
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2011-03-04       Impact factor: 41.582

9.  Tumor evolution. High burden and pervasive positive selection of somatic mutations in normal human skin.

Authors:  Iñigo Martincorena; Amit Roshan; Moritz Gerstung; Peter Ellis; Peter Van Loo; Stuart McLaren; David C Wedge; Anthony Fullam; Ludmil B Alexandrov; Jose M Tubio; Lucy Stebbings; Andrew Menzies; Sara Widaa; Michael R Stratton; Philip H Jones; Peter J Campbell
Journal:  Science       Date:  2015-05-22       Impact factor: 47.728

10.  The life and progression of induced skin tumors in mice.

Authors:  P SHUBIK; R BASERGA; A C RITCHIE
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1953-09       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  21 in total

Review 1.  Characterizing the ecological and evolutionary dynamics of cancer.

Authors:  Nastaran Zahir; Ruping Sun; Daniel Gallahan; Robert A Gatenby; Christina Curtis
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2020-07-27       Impact factor: 38.330

2.  Increased ASF1B Expression Correlates With Poor Prognosis in Patients With Gliomas.

Authors:  Huaxin Zhu; Hengyang Ouyang; Xinyi Pan; Zhixiong Zhang; Jiacong Tan; Nianzu Yu; Meihua Li; Yeyu Zhao
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-07-06       Impact factor: 5.738

Review 3.  Tumour heterogeneity and the evolutionary trade-offs of cancer.

Authors:  Jean Hausser; Uri Alon
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2020-02-24       Impact factor: 60.716

Review 4.  Eco-evolutionary causes and consequences of temporal changes in intratumoural blood flow.

Authors:  Robert J Gillies; Joel S Brown; Alexander R A Anderson; Robert A Gatenby
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 60.716

5.  Adaptive dynamics of unstable cancer populations: The canonical equation.

Authors:  Guim Aguadé-Gorgorió; Ricard Solé
Journal:  Evol Appl       Date:  2018-04-17       Impact factor: 5.183

6.  Somatic multicellularity as a satisficing solution to the prediction-error minimization problem.

Authors:  Chris Fields; Michael Levin
Journal:  Commun Integr Biol       Date:  2019-07-28

Review 7.  Temozolomide and Pituitary Tumors: Current Understanding, Unresolved Issues, and Future Directions.

Authors:  Luis V Syro; Fabio Rotondo; Mauricio Camargo; Leon D Ortiz; Carlos A Serna; Kalman Kovacs
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2018-06-15       Impact factor: 5.555

8.  An evolutionary framework for treating pediatric sarcomas.

Authors:  Damon R Reed; Jonathan Metts; Mariyah Pressley; Brooke L Fridley; Masanori Hayashi; Michael S Isakoff; David M Loeb; Rikesh Makanji; Ryan D Roberts; Matteo Trucco; Lars M Wagner; Mark G Alexandrow; Robert A Gatenby; Joel S Brown
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2020-03-16       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  ASF1B promotes cervical cancer progression through stabilization of CDK9.

Authors:  Xinjian Liu; Jingwei Song; Yenan Zhang; Huiquan Wang; Hongzhi Sun; Xiaomin Feng; Min Hou; Guo Chen; Qi Tang; Minjun Ji
Journal:  Cell Death Dis       Date:  2020-08-26       Impact factor: 8.469

10.  Over a century of cancer research: Inconvenient truths and promising leads.

Authors:  Carlos Sonnenschein; Ana M Soto
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2020-04-01       Impact factor: 9.593

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.