Recently published work showed that members of the PAQR protein family are activated by cell membrane rigidity and contribute to our ability to eat a wide variety of diets. Cell membranes are primarily composed of phospholipids containing dietarily obtained fatty acids, which poses a challenge to membrane properties because diets can vary greatly in their fatty acid composition and could impart opposite properties to the cellular membranes. In particular, saturated fatty acids (SFAs) can pack tightly and form rigid membranes (like (...) butter at room temperature) while unsaturated fatty acids (UFAs) form more fluid membranes (like vegetable oils). Proteins of the PAQR protein family, characterized by the presence of seven transmembrane domains and a cytosolic N‐terminus, contribute to membrane homeostasis in bacteria, yeasts, and animals. These proteins respond to membrane rigidity by stimulating fatty acid desaturation and incorporation of UFAs into phospholipids and explain the ability of animals to thrive on diets with widely varied fat composition. Also see the video abstract here: https://youtu.be/6ckcvaDdbQg. (shrink)

In the atavistic model of cancer progression, tumor cell dedifferentiation is interpreted as a reversion to phylogenetically earlier capabilities. The more recently evolved capabilities are compromised first during cancer progression. This suggests a therapeutic strategy for targeting cancer: design challenges to cancer that can only be met by the recently evolved capabilities no longer functional in cancer cells. We describe several examples of this target‐the‐weakness strategy. Our most detailed example involves the immune system. The absence of adaptive immunity in immunosuppressed (...) tumor environments is an irreversible weakness of cancer that can be exploited by creating a challenge that only the presence of adaptive immunity can meet. This leaves tumor cells more vulnerable than healthy tissue to pathogenic attack. Such a target‐the‐weakness therapeutic strategy has broad applications, and contrasts with current therapies that target the main strength of cancer: cell proliferation. (shrink)

The role of the microenvironment in cancer development is being increasingly appreciated. This paper will review data that highlight an emerging distinction between two different entities: the microenvironment that altered/preneoplastic/neoplastic cells find in the tissue where they reside, and the peculiar microenvironment inside the focal lesion (tumor) that these cells contribute to create. While alteration in the tissue environment can contribute to the selective clonal expansion of altered cells to form focal proliferative lesions, the atypical, non‐integrated growth pattern that defines (...) such focal lesions leads to the appearance of what is correctly referred to as the tumor microenvironment. The latter represents a new and unique biological milieu, characterized by hypoxia, acidosis and other biochemical and metabolic alterations, including genetic instability, that can set the stage for tumor progression to occur. Thus, the two microenvironments act in sequence and play complementary roles in the development of overt neoplasia. This distinction has important implications for the understanding of disease pathogenesis and for the management of preneoplastic/neoplastic lesions at various stages of cancer development. BioEssays 29:738–744, 2007. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. (shrink)

Modern biology has been heavily influenced by the gene‐centric concept. Paradoxically, this very concept – on which bioresearch is based – is challenged by the success of gene‐based research in terms of explaining evolutionary theory. To overcome this major roadblock, it is essential to establish new theories, to not only solve the key puzzles presented by the gene‐centric concept, but also to provide a conceptual framework that allows the field to grow. This paper discusses a number of paradoxes and illustrates (...) how they can be addressed by the genome‐centric concept in order to further resynthesize evolutionary theory. In particular, methodological breakthroughs that analyze genome evolution are discussed. The multiple interactions among different levels of a complex system provide the key to understanding the relationship between self‐organization and natural selection. Darwinian natural selection applies to the biological level due to its unique genetic and heterogeneous features, but does not simply or directly apply to either the lower non‐living level or higher intellectual society level. At the complex bio‐system level, the genome context (the entire package of genes and their genomic physical relationship or genomic topology), not the individual genes, defines the system and serves as the principle selection platform for evolution. (shrink)

A major challenge for The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) Project is solving the high level of genetic and epigenetic heterogeneity of cancer. For the majority of solid tumors, evolution patterns are stochastic and the end products are unpredictable, in contrast to the relatively predictable stepwise patterns classically described in many hematological cancers. Further, it is genome aberrations, rather than gene mutations, that are the dominant factor in generating abnormal levels of system heterogeneity in cancers. These features of cancer could significantly (...) reduce the impact of the sequencing approach, as it is only when mutated genes are the main cause of cancer that directly sequencing them is justified. Many biological factors (genetic and epigenetic variations, metabolic processes) and environmental influences can increase the probability of cancer formation, depending on the given circumstances. The common link between these factors is the stochastic genome variations that provide the driving force behind the cancer evolutionary process within multiple levels of a biological system. This analysis suggests that cancer is a disease of probability and the most‐challenging issue to the TCGA project, as well as the development of general strategies for fighting cancer, lie at the conceptual level. BioEssays 29:783–794, 2007. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. (shrink)

Our incomplete understanding of carcinogenesis may be a significant reason why some cancer mortality rates are still increasing. This lack of understanding is likely due to a research approach that relies heavily on genetic comparison between cancerous and non‐cancerous tissues and cells, which has led to the identification of genes of cancer proliferation rather than differentiation. Recent observations showing that a tremendous degree of natural human genetic variation occurs are likely to lead to a shift in the basic paradigms of (...) cancer genetics, in that there is a need to consider both the nature of the genes involved, and the idea that not every genetic variation identified in these genes may be associated with carcinogenesis. Based on studies using LCM and micro‐genetic analyses, we propose that significant cancer initiating events may take place during the very early stages of development of cancer‐susceptible tissues and that using such techniques might greatly help us in our understanding of carcinogenesis. BioEssays 29:678–685, 2007. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to assess the relevance of somatic evolution by natural selection to our understanding of cancer development. I do so in two steps. In the first part of the paper, I ask to what extent cancer cells meet the formal requirements for evolution by natural selection, relying on Godfrey-Smith’s (2009) framework of Darwinian populations. I argue that although they meet the minimal requirements for natural selection, cancer cells are not paradigmatic Darwinian populations. In the second (...) part of the paper, I examine the most important examples of adaptation in cancer cells. I argue that they are not significant accumulations of evolutionary changes, and that as a consequence natural selection plays a lesser role in their explanation. Their explanation, I argue, is best sought in the previously existing wiring of the healthy cells. (shrink)

In the past decades, an enormous amount of precious information has been collected about molecular and genetic characteristics of cancer. This knowledge is mainly based on a reductionistic approach, meanwhile cancer is widely recognized to be a ‘system biology disease’. The behavior of complex physiological processes cannot be understood simply by knowing how the parts work in isolation. There is not solely a matter how to integrate all available knowledge in such a way that we can still deal with complexity, (...) but we must be aware that a deeply transformation of the currently accepted oncologic paradigm is urgently needed. We have to think in terms of biological networks: understanding of complex functions may in fact be impossible without taking into consideration influences outside of the genome. Systems Biology involves connecting experimental unsupervised multivariate data to mathematical and computational approach than can simulate biologic systems for hypothesis testing or that can account for what it is not known from high-throughput data sets. Metabolomics could establish the requested link between genotype and phenotype, providing informations that ensure an integrated understanding of pathogenic mechanisms and metabolic phenotypes and provide a screening tool for new targeted drug. (shrink)