3 ms·
"Type" of cell is a human construct. There is no actual thing as a type of cell, so the list is always complete. People could decide to have more or less types
by nonbel 9y ago
"Type" of cell is a human construct. There is no actual thing as a type of cell, so the list is always complete. People could decide to have more or less types depending on what they are working on, but there is no sense in trying to delineate all the "types".
Currently we already have a classification system for cell types that is used to distinguish between different types of cancer. They should use exactly that same system.
Of course the numbers will vary by individual. What we want to get is basic upper/lower bounds. It would probably be best to see how well # of cells correlates with weight, skin area, etc and split the data into groups based on whatever easily measured physiological parameter would work best.
Once you have number of cells at various ages, then any biological theory that requires the collective activity of many cells will need to be consistent with these values. This can produce a major constraint on much theorizing, especially in areas like cancer.
Say you have a theory that cancer is caused by multiple mutations (eg, n = 7) accumulating in a cell lineage. You have other data about mutation rates per basepair per division (eg, p = 1e-8). If this theory is correct you would need a certain number of divisions to explain the curve of cancer incidence by age for that tissue. That number of divisions can be estimated from the difference in number of cells at various ages (or at least we can get some bounds on it by ignoring cell death, etc) and compared to the value required by the cancer theory.
- vanderZwan 9y agoYou sound like a phycisist who thinks he can explain the world in terms of spherical cows, asserting a shit-ton of stuff without clear back-up as to why what you state is true, acting as if all kinds of nuanced issues are simple and/or solved problems, and assuming authority over a field you do not seem to be part of. For example: > Currently we already have a classification system for cell types that is used to distinguish between different types of cancer. They should use exactly that same system. Why? You don't give any reason why this classification system is any better than any other. Why would a system of classification of cancers be useful for classifying all other cell types? Actually, asking this question is already giving this statement too much credit: which of the various classification systems are you even referring to[0]? [0] https://www.news-medical.net/health/Cancer-Classification.aspx https://www.news-medical.net/health/Cancer-Classification.as...
- nonbel 9y agoI don't follow your hang up about classification systems. Different systems are good for different purposes. There is no reason one is better than any other, in general. You are asking for something that makes no sense. EG, which is better: a winter coat or a hoody? It depends on the situation. You can use either of them, both of them together, or something else entirely. For the purpose of my example, use whatever system SEER uses since that is the biggest database of cancer data. >"You sound like a phycisist who thinks he can explain the world in terms of spherical cows, asserting a shit-ton of stuff without clear back-up as to why what you state is true, acting as if all kinds of nuanced issues are simple and/or solved problems, and assuming authority over a field you do not seem to be part of." I am saying literally count cells, how many are there that look like x, y, and z? Classify x, y, z however it is already being done in the clinic, if there is more than one method... then use more than one method. Each method probably has its advantages and drawbacks. What assumptions are you talking about? I am making pretty much none. Sit there, count the cells to the best of your ability, that's it. In fact the currently proposed project is going to be making all sorts of assumptions behind the various assays. Each of these makes the data more questionable. That is why I want basic stuff like # of cells that is least likely to be messed up.
- nonbel 9y agoIt looks like, same as for your link, SEER classifies tissues using the ICD-O-3 scheme: https://seer.cancer.gov/icd-o-3/ https://seer.cancer.gov/icd-o-3/ So if there is a cancer called "Papillary squamous cell carcinoma, non-invasive", I would want a count of "papillary squamous cells".