4 ms·
The evidence that p53 duplication is an important mechanism is very interesting, but we know p53 is not the sole answer. A good example of this is both humans a
by danieltillett 10y ago
The evidence that p53 duplication is an important mechanism is very interesting, but we know p53 is not the sole answer. A good example of this is both humans and mice have one copy of the p53 gene yet humans are vastly more resistant to developing cancer than mice.
- andrewjl 10y agoCould that be because humans are more complex from a biochemical standpoint than mice?
- danieltillett 10y agoIt is because we have been selected for a much longer lifespan than mice. Basically during human evolution there has been a selection process for greater resistance to developing cancer - if we got cancer at the rate mice get it almost nobody would make it to be a teenager. Humans are by animal standards very long lived and naturally quite resistant to developing cancer. We have many more anti-cancer biochemical and genetic systems (antioncogenes) that work much better than the same systems in mice.
- i000 10y agoPlease, your statement is so ambiguous that it makes almost no sense. 1. Which mouse? An inbred laboratory possibly immunodeficient strain, a genetically engineered mouse to GET cancer at a high rate, or maybe a wild type free-range mouse? 2. Which cancer? Do you realize that it is almost impossible to get realistic models of prostate cancer or that mice simply live to short to get colorectal cancer - even when the relevant mutations are introduced?
- danieltillett 10y agoSorry if I was being ambiguous. All mice are less resistant to cancer than humans, even wild type mice. Mice in nature rarely live long enough to get cancer, but if you put them up in a mouse retirement home (lab), a large percentage of wild mice will get spontaneous cancers. Yes mouse cancer in not a great model for human cancer and we probably should not be using mice - about the only good thing they have going for them as a model is they are small and cheap. Personally I would like to see us using pets (dogs and cats) much more as their cancers are a much better match to human cancers in both how they develop and how they progress. That we are not taking better advantage of this resource to develop new treatments is a tragedy.
- FreeFull 10y agoI suspect one reason could be that mice have much faster metabolisms than humans. Also, typically the speed of metabolism is typically inversely correlated with size, although there definitely are some outliers too.
- danieltillett 10y agoMice have far few cells than humans so they should be much less likely to get cancer (all things being equal). Peto’s paradox is all about this effect [1]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peto%27s_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peto%27s_paradox
- venomsnake 10y agoBut those cells burn at a lot higher rate.
- Ericson2314 10y agoAnd wow, the "related articles" were actually useful for once. http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20151031-the-animal-that-doesnt-get-cancer http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20151031-the-animal-that-does... mentions duplicating the gene in mice: 2 copies seems to be the sweet spot.
- danieltillett 10y agoYes but not a billion time more. The relative resistance of human cells to cancer compared to mice is more than just about metabolism.
- choosername 10y agopart of "intelligently" informed "lifestyle choices" might be what these big mammals have what we don't.