On somatic mutations and tissue fields in cancer

Process analysis of carcinogenesis: concept derivation of the tissue function "preservation of a homogeneous gene expression"

A new system for maintaining homogeneous gene expression in tissue and for destroying through apoptosis nonconforming cells is introduced. This functionality is called the "similarity comparison." Accordingly, the survival of mutated cells is hindered due to reduced gene expression. That, in turn, maintains the homogeneity of the tissue and prevents tumors from developing. The concept of the similarity comparison is that every stationary cell in every tissue constantly screens the gene expression of its neighbors. Cells process the signals, and when the difference between neighbors exceeds some threshold, a signal is triggered. An under-expressing cell then either increases its gene expression or apoptosis occurs. The oversight role of the similarity comparison can, under certain conditions, be disrupted, such that mutated cells in the tissue can survive. This is possible only when surrounding normal cells exhibit reduced gene expression. In this case, the normal cells and mutated cells have similar gene expression, and the signal for apoptosis is not triggered. The mutated cells survive, and a tumor can develop. The importance of the similarity comparison as an oversight mechanism is studied. Examples are considered.

SMT or TOFT? How the two main theories of carcinogenesis are made (artificially) incompatible

The building of a global model of carcinogenesis is one of modern biology's greatest challenges. The traditional somatic mutation theory (SMT) is now supplemented by a new approach, called the Tissue Organization Field Theory (TOFT). According to TOFT, the original source of cancer is loss of tissue organization rather than genetic mutations. In this paper, we study the argumentative strategy used by the advocates of TOFT to impose their view. In particular, we criticize their claim of incompatibility used to justify the necessity to definitively reject SMT. First, we note that since it is difficult to build a non-ambiguous experimental demonstration of the superiority of TOFT, its partisans add epistemological and metaphysical arguments to the debate. This argumentative strategy allows them to defend the necessity of a paradigm shift, with TOFT superseding SMT. To do so, they introduce a notion of incompatibility, which they actually use as the Kuhnian notion of incommensurability. To justify this so-called incompatibility between the two theories of cancer, they move the debate to a metaphysical ground by assimilating the controversy to a fundamental opposition between reductionism and organicism. We show here that this argumentative strategy is specious, because it does not demonstrate clearly that TOFT is an organicist theory. Since it shares with SMT its vocabulary, its ontology and its methodology, it appears that a claim of incompatibility based on this metaphysical plan is not fully justified in the present state of the debate. We conclude that it is more cogent to argue that the two theories are compatible, both biologically and metaphysically. We propose to consider that TOFT and SMT describe two distinct and compatible causal pathways to carcinogenesis. This view is coherent with the existence of integrative approaches, and suggests that they have a higher epistemic value than the two theories taken separately.