Is Cancer Trying to Protect Us?

Seven years ago, the National Cancer Institute funded The Center for the Convergence of Physical Science and Cancer Biology at Arizona State University. By bringing together different realms of science, the National Cancer Institute hoped to glean some unique insight by completely revamping the present understanding of cancer.

Breast Cancer Cell - http://www.fmh.org/body.cfm?id=558

In an attempt to reconstruct the entire physiological basis of cancer, Lineweaver (an astrobiologst), Davies (a cosmologist), and Vincent (an oncologist) were able to conceive a radical new model for the evolutionary purpose of cancer. Their “atavistic” model explains that cancer is simply the re-expression of an ancient “preprogrammed” trait that has simply been inactive.

In their paper, published in BioEssays in July 2014, they argue that because cancer appears in countless types of animals and plants, then it must have evolved hundreds of millions of years ago when we shared a common, single-celled, ancestor. Millions of years ago, cells relied heavily on uncontrolled cell division (proliferation). However, multicellular organisms were able keep the somatic cells in check (somatic cells no longer needed uncontrolled proliferation) and ensure that only the eggs and sperm maintained some proliferative capabilities.

I think this quote best sums up their main ideas in relation to cancer treatment: "It may seem rational to treat a proliferative disease with anti-proliferative drugs however, after ~ 4 billion years of evolution (the first ~ 3 billion of which were the largely unregulated proliferation of unicellular organisms) cellular proliferation may be the most protected, least vulnerable, most redundant, and most entrenched capability that any cell has".

In this sense, when cells are under duress (possibly induced by exposure to radiation or various lifestyle habits), they relapse to their "preprogrammed safe mode", and by doing so, "the cells jettison higher functionality and switch their dormant ability to proliferate back on in a misguided attempt to survive". 

Today, most cancer treatments aim to interfere with the cell's proliferation process. The authors argue that this attempt is not successful because proliferation is something that the cell does best. Since cells have had millions of years of genetic history perfecting the proliferation process, trying to stop one of their greatest strengths is impractical. 

Instead, the authors propose using the history of cancer against it. For example, if their theory is correct, then proliferation was prominent when Earth’s environment had increased acidity and decreased oxygen amounts. Consequently, treating patients with high levels of oxygen and reducing sugar in their diet, to lower acidity, will place environmental strain on the cancer and cause a decrease in proliferation.

In support of their opinion, the effects of oxygen levels on cancer have been independently investigated for many years and appear to support the team's ideas (link to a review article on hyperbaric oxygen therapy and cancer). Although this theory has yet to fully lend credence to the cancer cure, a new paradigm in cancer treatment could open the gateway to new, more effective, treatments. 

 

Sources:

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.201400070/abstract

www.ansto.gov.au/cs/groups/corporate/documents/document/mdaw/mdix/~edisp/acs047508.pdf