A novel pathogenic classification of cancers

Evo-devo perspectives on cancer

The integration of evolutionary and developmental approaches into the field of evolutionary developmental biology has opened new areas of inquiry- from understanding the evolution of development and its underlying genetic and molecular mechanisms to addressing the role of development in evolution. For the last several decades, the terms 'evolution' and 'development' have been increasingly linked to cancer, in many different frameworks and contexts. This mini-review, as part of a special issue on Evolutionary Developmental Biology, discusses the main areas in cancer research that have been addressed through the lenses of both evolutionary and developmental biology, though not always fully or explicitly integrated in an evo-devo framework. First, it briefly introduces the current views on carcinogenesis that invoke evolutionary and/or developmental perspectives. Then, it discusses the main mechanisms proposed to have specifically evolved to suppress cancer during the evolution of multicellularity. Lastly, it considers whether the evolution of multicellularity and development was shaped by the threat of cancer (a cancer-evo-devo perspective), and/or whether the evolution of developmental programs and life history traits can shape cancer resistance/risk in various lineages (an evo-devo-cancer perspective). A proper evolutionary developmental framework for cancer, both as a disease and in terms of its natural history (in the context of the evolution of multicellularity and development as well as life history traits), could bridge the currently disparate evolutionary and developmental perspectives and uncover aspects that will provide new insights for cancer prevention and treatment.

The cancer puzzle: Welcome to organicism

During the fifty years since President Nixon declared the "War on Cancer", those inside and outside the cancer community have witnessed the systematic moving of the goalposts attitude to accommodate evidence into an inadequate theory, that is, the Somatic Mutation Theory (SMT). This sorry state promoted a renewable yearly promise that at the end of the next 10-year period the promises uttered in 1971 would become reality. Each failure triggered calls to do more of the same research under the same theory, routinely using more and more sophisticated technology. Meanwhile, in the last few years, an unambiguous general consensus has emerged acknowledging that this overall long, intensive effort has failed, and that it is likely that the solution to the cancer problem resides elsewhere, namely, in alternative theoretical principles of biology. In this essay we concentrate, first, on the big picture, from the philosophical stance (reductionism versus organicism) to the need to adopt rigorous theories. From this novel perspective we conceptualize cancer as a disease of tissue organization akin to development gone awry. Finally, having identified both a promising stance and a useful theory, i.e., the tissue organization field theory (TOFT), we call for abandoning the SMT and for adopting the more promising TOFT.

Over a century of cancer research: Inconvenient truths and promising leads

Despite over a century of intensive efforts, the great gains promised by the War on Cancer nearly 50 years ago have not materialized. Since 1999, we have analyzed the lack of progress in explaining and "curing" cancer by examining the merits of the premises that determine how cancer is understood and treated. Our ongoing critical analyses have aimed at clarifying the sources of misunderstandings at the root of the cancer puzzle while providing a plausible and comprehensive biomedical perspective as well as a new theory of carcinogenesis that is compatible with evolutionary theory. In this essay, we explain how this new theory, the tissue organization field theory (TOFT), can help chart a path to progress for cancer researchers by explaining features of cancer that remain unexplainable from the perspective of the still hegemonic somatic mutation theory (SMT) and its variants. Of equal significance, the premises underlying the TOFT offer new perspectives on basic biological phenomena.

An Integrative Approach Toward Biology, Organisms, and Cancer

Over the last two decades, we have challenged the hegemony of the somatic mutation theory of carcinogenesis (SMT) based on the lack of theoretical coherence of the premises adopted by its followers. We offered instead a theoretical alternative, the tissue organization field theory (TOFT), that is based on the premises that cancer is a tissue-based disease and that proliferation and motility is the default state of all cells. We went on to use a theory-neutral experimental protocol that simultaneously tested the TOFT and the SMT. The results of this test favored adopting the TOFT and rejecting the SMT. Recently, an analysis of the differences between the Physics of the inanimate and that of the living matter has led us to propose principles for the construction of a much needed theory of organisms. The three biological principles are (a) a default state, (b) a principle of variation, and (c) one of organization. The TOFT, defined as "development gone awry," fits well within the principles that we propose for a theory of organisms. This radical conceptual change opened up the possibility of anchoring mathematical modeling on genuine biological principles. By identifying constraints to the default state, multilevel biomechanical explanations become as legitimate as the molecular ones on which other modelers that adopt the SMT rely. Expanding research based on the premises of our theory of organisms will enrich a comprehensive understanding of normal development and of the one that goes awry.

SMT and TOFT: Why and How They are Opposite and Incompatible Paradigms

The Somatic Mutation Theory (SMT) has been challenged on its fundamentals by the Tissue Organization Field Theory of Carcinogenesis (TOFT). However, a recent publication has questioned whether TOFT could be a valid alternative theory of carcinogenesis to that presented by SMT. Herein we critically review arguments supporting the irreducible opposition between the two theoretical approaches by highlighting differences regarding the philosophical, methodological and experimental approaches on which they respectively rely. We conclude that SMT has not explained carcinogenesis due to severe epistemological and empirical shortcomings, while TOFT is gaining momentum. The main issue is actually to submit SMT to rigorous testing. This concern includes the imperatives to seek evidence for disproving one's hypothesis, and to consider the whole, and not just selective evidence.

Carcinogenesis explained within the context of a theory of organisms

For a century, the somatic mutation theory (SMT) has been the prevalent theory to explain carcinogenesis. According to the SMT, cancer is a cellular problem, and thus, the level of organization where it should be studied is the cellular level. Additionally, the SMT proposes that cancer is a problem of the control of cell proliferation and assumes that proliferative quiescence is the default state of cells in metazoa. In 1999, a competing theory, the tissue organization field theory (TOFT), was proposed. In contraposition to the SMT, the TOFT posits that cancer is a tissue-based disease whereby carcinogens (directly) and mutations in the germ-line (indirectly) alter the normal interactions between the diverse components of an organ, such as the stroma and its adjacent epithelium. The TOFT explicitly acknowledges that the default state of all cells is proliferation with variation and motility. When taking into consideration the principle of organization, we posit that carcinogenesis can be explained as a relational problem whereby release of the constraints created by cell interactions and the physical forces generated by cellular agency lead cells within a tissue to regain their default state of proliferation with variation and motility. Within this perspective, what matters both in morphogenesis and carcinogenesis is not only molecules, but also biophysical forces generated by cells and tissues. Herein, we describe how the principles for a theory of organisms apply to the TOFT and thus to the study of carcinogenesis.

Stem Cell Differentiation Stage Factors from Zebrafish Embryo: A Novel Strategy to Modulate the Fate of Normal and Pathological Human (Stem) Cells

In spite of the growing body of evidence on the biology of the Zebrafish embryo and stem cells, including the use of Stem Cell Differentiation Stage Factors (SCDSFs) taken from Zebrafish embryo to impact cancer cell dynamics, comparatively little is known about the possibility to use these factors to modulate the homeostasis of normal human stem cells or to modulate the behavior of cells involved in different pathological conditions. In the present review we recall in a synthetic way the most important researches about the use of SCDSFs in reprogramming cancer cells and in modulating the high speed of multiplication of keratinocytes which is characteristic of some pathological diseases like psoriasis. Moreover we add here the results about the capability of SCDSFs in modulating the homeostasis of human adiposederived stem cells (hASCs) isolated from a fat tissue obtained with a novel-non enzymatic method and device. In addition we report the data not yet published about a first protein analysis of the SCDSFs and about their role in a pathological condition like neurodegeneration.

Environmental endocrine disruptors: Effects on the human male reproductive system

Incidences of altered development and neoplasia of male reproductive organs have increased during the last 50 years, as shown by epidemiological data. These data are associated with the increased presence of environmental chemicals, specifically "endocrine disruptors," that interfere with normal hormonal action. Much research has gone into testing the effects of specific endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) on the development of male reproductive organs and endocrine-related cancers in both in vitro and in vivo models. Efforts have been made to bridge the accruing laboratory findings with the epidemiological data to draw conclusions regarding the relationship between EDCs, altered development and carcinogenesis. The ability of EDCs to predispose target fetal and adult tissues to neoplastic transformation is best explained under the framework of the tissue organization field theory of carcinogenesis (TOFT), which posits that carcinogenesis is development gone awry. Here, we focus on the available evidence, from both empirical and epidemiological studies, regarding the effects of EDCs on male reproductive development and carcinogenesis of endocrine target tissues. We also critique current research methodology utilized in the investigation of EDCs effects and outline what could possibly be done to address these obstacles moving forward.