Banner
    Are Cancers New Species?
    By Gunnar De Winter | July 27th 2011 07:04 AM | 3 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Gunnar

    Some people go through a 'why-phase' in their childhood, driving their parents utterly mad. In me, that phase never really ended. Needless to say...

    View Gunnar's Profile

    Cancer is one of the scourges of modern society. An increasing number of people are fighting it, and a lot of research is being done in order to understand it better, hopefully leading to treatments or cures.

    At present, the dominant theory is that cancer arises from a handful gene mutations. But recently, Peter Duesberg and his colleagues at UC Berkeley have launched the idea that cancer instead arises from chromosome disruptions, and that this, in fact, constitutes a form of speciation. So, according to this view, cancers are newly evolved species, as they have new chromosomal karyotypes. On top of this, cancers are autonomous and don’t need other cells for survival.

    This idea has been hinted at before. As early as 1956, evolutionary biologist Julian S. Huxley has written that:

    Once the neoplastic process has crossed the threshold of autonomy, the resultant tumor can be logically regarded as a new biologic species 

    This view of cancer as parasite is also supported by transmissible forms of cancer, most famously probably the devil facial tumor disease (DFTD) in Tasmanian Devils (see figure 1), a form of parasitic cancer that is transmitted from one animal to another by a whole cancer cell.

      

    Figure 1: Tasmanian Devil affectd by DFTD.

    (Source: Wikimedia Commons, Menna Jones)

        

    All cancer cells are known to be aneuploid (meaning they have an abnormal number of chromosomes) (see figure 2). Proponents of the ‘mutation theory’ claim this is the consequence of cancer. But Duesberg argues that it is the cause. According to his theory, some initial chromosomal disruption messes with the cell’s chromosomes. In most cases this means the end of the cell, but sometimes, on rare occasions, this cell with disrupted chromosome might be able to keep dividing. This continued division will produce many unviable cells, but some will attain reproductive autonomy, a primary characteristic of both cancer cells and biological species. As these cancer cells develop relatively stable karyotypes, clearly different from the one of their host, they could be viewed as distinct species.

       

    Figure 2: (A) Normal human karyotype, with two copies of each chromosome (except, of course, sex chromosomes in men), (B) Karyotype of a bladder cancer cell, with extra copies, missing and 'hybrid' chromosomes.

    (Source: NewsCenter UC Berkeley)

       

    The researchers developed karyographs (see figure 3) to display the aneuploid nature of a cell’s karyotype and its stability. These karyographs show that the karyotype is remarkably similar in all the cells of a specific cancer cell line, and different from those of other cancers, and even different from the same type of cancer in a different patient. These individualized karyotypes are quite reminiscent of the different karyotypes of different species.   


    Figure 3: Top: Normal human karyograph, Bottom: Karyograph of cervical cancer cell line, with differing numbers of chromosomal copies and several 'hybrid' chromosomes.
    (Source: NewsCenter UC Berkeley)
       
    This ‘speciation theory’ of cancer might sound odd at first, but it does explain some common characteristics of cancer:
    •  Species-specific autonomy. 

    •  Karyotypic and phenotypic individuality.

    •  Flexibility by karyotypic variations within stable margins of autonomy.

    •  Immortality by replacing defective karyotypes from constitutive pools of competent variants or subspecies generated by this flexibility

    •  Long neoplastic latencies by the low probability that random karyotypic alterations generate new autonomous species.

    It also offers an explanation for the ‘aneuploidy paradox’ of cancer in other theories. Aneuploidy usually results in an impairment of growth and development, but not so in cancer cells. If the aneuploidy of cancer, on the other hand, represents the karyotype of a new species, the paradox disappears.

    If cancer cells are truly new species, we might have a fighting chance, since we are quite good at wiping out other species…

      

    Reference

    Duesberg, P.; Mandrioli, D.; McCormack, A. and Nicholson, J.M. (2011). Is carcinogenesis a form of speciation? Cell Cycle. 10(13), pp. 2100 – 2114. Doi: 10.4161/cc.10.13.16352.

    Comments

    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    Interesting article Gunnar, though very scary. I have also recently been reading up about the 'contagious' cancers which I feel are very unnerving because they are still mutating, diversifying and spreading by contact and therefore could potentially become even more contagious and transferrable to other species. Paul Knoepfler recently said in this article :-
    In the dogs and Tasmanian Devils, it is a very different situation. They can literally and directly pass on cancer to each other. Not a virus, but actual cells, cancer cells.  It is the cancer itself that can be directly passed on from animal to animal. 
    Amazingly and frighteningly, these cancer cells seem to be able to grow in another host and are not derived from the dog that gets the cancer. They are in essence an independent organism, a horrible one that is immortal. 
    To my knowledge, in humans there is no evidence of cancer itself (meaning the actual cells) being transmitted from one person to another, except in the case of organ transplantation when it has definitely occurred.  However, it is formally possible that it happens in immunocompromised people outside the context of organ transplantation too during sex or if someone bites someone or gets exposed to blood.
    I read in Wikipedia here about DFTD (Devil Face Tumour Disease) that :-
    the Tasmanian devil cells have 14 chromosomes, while the tumour cells contain 13....The karyotype anomalies of DFTD cells are similar to those of cancer cells from canine transmissible venereal tumour (CTVT), a cancer of dogs that is transmitted between canines by physical contact. 
    Ultimately the idea that cancer cells themselves are an infective agent (the Allograft Theory) turned out to be correct, with transmission of the disease occurring by biting, feeding on the same material, and aggressive mating.....There are at least nine strains of the cancer, showing that it is evolving, and may become more virulent. The strains may also complicate attempts to develop a vaccine, and the mutation of the cancer may mean that it could spread to other related species, like the quoll.
    I think that this implies that a Tasmanian Devil could potentially transfer this cancer by biting a similar species like a quoll which belongs to the tribe Dasyurini. These include the antechinuses, the Kowari, and mulgaras, which are all marsupials and resemble rats, mice and hedgehogs and are widespread throughout Australia, unlike the Tasmanian Devil, which is mainly limited to the island of Tasmania and is rapidly becoming extinct because of DFTD. So DFTD has the potential to become quite widespread throughout Australia. Dogs can catch CTVT (Canine Transmissable Venereal Tumour) simply by sniffing another dog's backside, and as we all know they do this a lot! This contagious cancer is one of the longest living, contagious cancer cells in the world and believed to have originated in wolves thousands of years ago. 

    In humans, some viruses, such as HPV16 or genital warts can cause cervical and throat cancers. If a person infects another person with HPV16 they are giving that person a highly increased risk of cancer but not everyone infected with HPV16 will get cancer but maybe not every dog that comes into contact with CTVT will get a canine transmissable veneral tumour and not every Tasmanian Devil bitten by another infected Devil gets TDFD? 

    I suppose that hypothetically the CTVT cancer could also mutate and even infect humans one day? How do we know that it hasn't already? Also why is it that so few people understand that genital warts on a man can cause cervical cancer in a woman? If it was the other way around and genital warts in a woman could cause cancer of the penis in a man would it be better pubilicized I wonder?  More recently it has also been discovered that this HPV16 virus may also be causing throat cancer when transmitted through oral sex, so maybe this will trigger more HPV16 publicity? I think I will research this more fully and write a blog, if no one else here does it first.
    Gerhard Adam
    Doesn't sound very convincing.  For a speciation event to occur, there has to be a basis for selection for which cancers are failures (i.e. they die with the host).  Therefore if there is a new species to be considered it must come from an external source that is subject to selection (i.e. something akin to a virus). 

    This could also account for some of the anomalies you've mentioned since a virus already performs similar actions in hijacking a cell's reproductive capabilities in order to reproduce itself.  If such a viral infection "evolved" to also retain some of the cell's basic machinery and retain the viability of the cell itself, wouldn't you have a similar situation as being described here?

    I'm not disputing the basic claim here, but only arguing that these "species" would not be due to cancers, but rather that the cancer itself is only a symptom of some other cause.

    It's fine to refer to "chromosome disruptions", but how is that different from mutations?  If the point is merely chromosomal damage, then it doesn't say anything knew.
    ...they could be viewed as distinct species.
    I don't see how, if there's no generation beyond the current one.  Somatic evolution has been used to explain how cancer cells compete against the body's cells, but in all cases (other than these specialized instances of contagion), it reflects a dead-end that can never extend beyond the original organism.
    Varmus, Duesberg, Shapoval and Ferromagnetic Theory of Cancer. Harold Varmus, M.D., co-recipient of a Nobel Prize for studies of the genetic basis of cancer, was nominated by President Obama as Director of the NCI on May 17, 2010. According to Varmus, the genetic material (DNA) of a cell can become damaged or changed, producing mutations that affect normal cell growth and division. Cells become cancer cells because of DNA damage. The mutation theory of cancer says that a limited number of genes causes cancer. Peter Duesberg is a Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California, Berkeley. Duesberg’s arguments derive from his controversial proposal that the mutation theory of cancer - that tumors begin when a handful of mutated genes send a cell into uncontrolled growth - is wrong. Duesberg argues, instead, that carcinogenesis is initiated by a disruption of the chromosomes, which leads to duplicates, deletions, breaks and other chromosomal damage that alter the balance of tens of thousands of genes. The result is a cell with totally new traits - that is, a new phenotype. “I think Duesberg is correct by criticizing mutation theory, which sustains a billion-dollar drug industry focused on blocking these mutations,” said Mark Vincent, a medical oncologist. Vadim Shapoval is a Professor of The Old Testament. According to Shapoval, Varmus and Duesberg ignore Laws of Physics; produce erroneous cancer theories (mutation and chromosomal). Any human cell should be interpreted as a society of dia-, para-, superpara-, ferri- and ferromagnetic nanoparticles. These nanoparticles have certain local magnetic contacts. Superpara-, ferri- and ferromagnetic nanoparticles: 1) strongly attract superpara-, ferri- and ferromagnetic nanoparticles; 2) weakly attract paramagnetic nanoparticles; 3) weakly repel diamagnetic nanoparticles. Any human organism consists of normal cells (cells with non-numerous superpara-, ferri- and ferromagnetic nanoparticles) and tumor cells (cells with numerous superpara-, ferri- and ferromagnetic nanoparticles). Intracellular molecules FeO;Fe2O3;Fe3O4 are the main ‘creators’ of intracellular superpara-, ferri- and ferromagnetic nanoparticles that can chaotically distort DNA and shift chromosomes / chromosomal fragments (by local magnetic fields). The Ferromagnetic Theory of Cancer (Theory from The Old Testament): oncologists must beat cancer (a subtle iron disease) by non-complicated anti-iron methods of The Old Testament. Anti-iron intratumoral injections [sulfur (2%) + olive oil (98%); 36.6C - 39.0C] (by ceramic needles) can suppress any tumors and large metastases. Anti-iron accurate slow blood loss (even 75%) [hemoglobin control], anti-iron goat’s milk diet and anti-iron drinking water containing hydrogen sulfide can neutralize any micro-metastases http://winningcancer.com/index.php/2010/03/cancer-theories/ ; http://www.tutuz.com/spontaneous-remission-cancer-als-aids-ferromagnetic... ; http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/opinions/45448/ ; https://getsatisfaction.com/go2web20/topics/allafrica_global_media_ferro... ; http://oncologic.blogspot.com/2007/12/carcinogenesis.html ; http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oncogenesis ; http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/jsp/db/board.jsp?id=81813 ; http://www.science20.com/curious_cub/are_cancers_new_species-81237 ; Vadim Shapoval

    Add a comment

    The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
    • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite><TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe><u><font>
    • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
    CAPTCHA
    If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.