5 ms·

What do you mean by "anti-oncogene systems? That makes me think of stuff like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumor_suppressor_gene#Functions https://en.wi

by nonbel 9y ago

What do you mean by "anti-oncogene systems? That makes me think of stuff like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumor_suppressor_gene#Functions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumor_suppressor_gene#Function... Those functions are pretty much the same as what I mentioned above (adhesion isn't included in my list): "obviously the ultimate solution needs to be either reducing the number of cell divisions or the rate of junk/error accumulation per division"

danieltillett 9y ago
Tumor suppressor is a synonym for anti-oncogene. The systems present in each species is not the same and the large long lived animals of more and better systems. Unfortunately, we don't know too much about them.
- nonbel 9y ago
  That is called Peto's paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peto%27s_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peto%27s_paradox. Afaik the idea that larger animals have more robust tumor suppression systems is an assumption required due to a possibly incorrect understanding of the stem cell division scheme: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25459141 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25459141 If you look close enough at this topic you will realize that we don't have good data on how many divisions are actually happening in each tissue. Our understanding is very rudimentary so it is extremely dangerous to take anything as fact on this topic. As a science, cancer research is not even yet at the point of astronomy when people began estimating the number of stars... It is in a pre-astrology stage where all sorts of wild speculations and fads reign supreme. EDIT: Note that in the Morris 2014 paper I linked he calls Peto's paradox the "man-mouse paradox" and uses 'Peto's paradox' to mean something else.
  - danieltillett 9y ago
    We actually know that elephants have extra systems for controlling cancer and we haven't really looked carefully [1]. We have also learned a little about these systems in bowhead whales [2]. I think we are a bit further along with understanding cancer (we haven't found a major oncogene in a while), but I do agree we still have a way to go, especially on the treatment/prevention front. 1. https://www.nature.com/news/how-elephants-avoid-cancer-1.18534 https://www.nature.com/news/how-elephants-avoid-cancer-1.185... 2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4536333/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4536333/
    - nonbel 9y ago
      This is still wild speculation. "Elephants live a long time and have multiple copies of p53" (these retrotransposed copies so they are under different promoters, missing introns, etc ...) does not equate to what you said. Look at all the functions for p53 on the right of this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TP53 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TP53 It is not difficult at all to look at a genome and find some pattern that you can weave a plausible story around. Also, here are the conclusions of your two papers: >"To our knowledge, this study offers the first supporting evidence based on empirical data that larger animals with longer life spans may develop less cancer, especially elephants. [...] Compared with other mammalian species, elephants appeared to have a lower-than-expected rate of cancer, potentially related to multiple copies of TP53." >"The genetic and molecular mechanisms by which longevity evolves remain largely unexplained" Now consider how simplistic the idea behind these studies is: "Elephants/whales live a long time and are rarely observed to get cancer relative to humans, we should look into why". Investigation of the most basic aspects of the problem has only begun a few years ago...

by nonbel 9y ago

danieltillett 9y ago

Tumor suppressor is a synonym for anti-oncogene. The systems present in each species is not the same and the large long lived animals of more and better systems. Unfortunately, we don't know too much about them.

nonbel 9y ago
That is called Peto's paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peto%27s_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peto%27s_paradox. Afaik the idea that larger animals have more robust tumor suppression systems is an assumption required due to a possibly incorrect understanding of the stem cell division scheme: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25459141 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25459141 If you look close enough at this topic you will realize that we don't have good data on how many divisions are actually happening in each tissue. Our understanding is very rudimentary so it is extremely dangerous to take anything as fact on this topic. As a science, cancer research is not even yet at the point of astronomy when people began estimating the number of stars... It is in a pre-astrology stage where all sorts of wild speculations and fads reign supreme. EDIT: Note that in the Morris 2014 paper I linked he calls Peto's paradox the "man-mouse paradox" and uses 'Peto's paradox' to mean something else.
- danieltillett 9y ago
  We actually know that elephants have extra systems for controlling cancer and we haven't really looked carefully [1]. We have also learned a little about these systems in bowhead whales [2]. I think we are a bit further along with understanding cancer (we haven't found a major oncogene in a while), but I do agree we still have a way to go, especially on the treatment/prevention front. 1. https://www.nature.com/news/how-elephants-avoid-cancer-1.18534 https://www.nature.com/news/how-elephants-avoid-cancer-1.185... 2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4536333/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4536333/
  - nonbel 9y ago
    This is still wild speculation. "Elephants live a long time and have multiple copies of p53" (these retrotransposed copies so they are under different promoters, missing introns, etc ...) does not equate to what you said. Look at all the functions for p53 on the right of this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TP53 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TP53 It is not difficult at all to look at a genome and find some pattern that you can weave a plausible story around. Also, here are the conclusions of your two papers: >"To our knowledge, this study offers the first supporting evidence based on empirical data that larger animals with longer life spans may develop less cancer, especially elephants. [...] Compared with other mammalian species, elephants appeared to have a lower-than-expected rate of cancer, potentially related to multiple copies of TP53." >"The genetic and molecular mechanisms by which longevity evolves remain largely unexplained" Now consider how simplistic the idea behind these studies is: "Elephants/whales live a long time and are rarely observed to get cancer relative to humans, we should look into why". Investigation of the most basic aspects of the problem has only begun a few years ago...