Cancer and gene mutation: A real or fictious relationship?



C

Cncabej

Guest
Cancer is generally considered to be an abnormal growth of
cells caused by mutations in DNA induced by carcinogenic
substances, viral oncogenes, ionizing radiations etc.
Although evidence has been insufficient, and it has also
been argued that often this relationship was not seen, the
mutational theory of cancer is the explanation we find in
every textbook. A recent experiment raises doubts about the
validity of the dogma. Investigators show that mutation in
the Ha-ras-1 gene is sometime found in normal mammary gland
and is absent in cancerous cells. Here is the abstract
published in the Journal of Cell Science on March , 2 2004.

THE STROMA AS A CRUCIAL TARGET IN RAT MAMMARY GLAND
CARCINOGENESIS

Maricel V. Maffini1, Ana M. Soto1,*, Janine M. Calabro1,
Angelo A. Ucci2 and Carlos Sonnenschein1

A complex network of interactions between the stroma, the
extracellular matrix and the epithelium drives mammary gland
development and function. Two main assumptions in chemical
carcinogenesis of the mammary gland have been that
carcinogens induce neoplasia by causing mutations in the DNA
of the epithelial cells and that the alterations of tissue
architecture observed in neoplasms are a consequence of this
primary mutational event. Here, we use a rat mammary tissue
recombination model and the chemical carcinogen N-
nitrosomethylurea (NMU) to determine whether the primary
target of the carcinogen is the epithelium, the stroma or
both tissue compartments. Mammary epithelial cells were
exposed in vitro either to the carcinogen or vehicle before
being transplanted into the cleared fat pads of rats exposed
to carcinogen or vehicle. We observed that neoplastic
transformation of these mammary epithelial cells occurred
only when the stroma was exposed in vivo to NMU, regardless
of whether or not the epithelial cells were exposed to the
carcinogen. Mammary epithelial cells exposed in vitro to the
carcinogen formed phenotypically normal ducts when injected
into a non-treated stroma. Mutation in the Ha-ras-1 gene did
not correlate with initiation of neoplasia. Not only was it
often found in both cleared mammary fat pads of vehicle-
treated animals and intact mammary glands of untreated
animals, but it was also absent in some tumors. Our results
suggest that the stroma is a crucial target of the
carcinogen and that mutation in the Ha-ras-1 gene is neither
necessary nor sufficient for tumor initiation.

I am not predicting (although I am not excluding) that this
will start a chain reaction of experiments designed to prove
the EPIGENETIC origin of cancer, but it should make us
rethink what is real (production of proteins) and what is
fictious (determination of morphology, etiology of diseases,
etc.) on the role of genes in biology.
 
<< Cancer is generally considered to be an abnormal growth
of cells caused by mutations in DNA induced by carcinogenic
substances, viral oncogenes, ionizing radiations etc. >>

Let me say this cautiously.

Yet it has also been found that many cancer patients share
some basic psychological behaviors. Why would that be if
those psychological behaviors didn't in some way connect
with the disease?

Anyone studying a chronic disease that develops over long
periods of time, and that seems to have a strong
psychological aspect accompanying it ; should take that into
account when attacking the disease - everything should be on
the table in attacking cancer IMO.

In the case of some cancer (those not proven to be caused by
carcinogens) there seems to often be a stoic behavior in the
patient, an anger at self, a strong guilt, repressed fears
in some cases, etc. Is that a reflection of the body's
response to the disease, or a cause that is partially
responsible.

We know of cases of diseases in which the self not only
attacks the non-self within the body, but it wrongly attacks
the self within the body too as sort of an over protection
that has gone amok. Where does cancer fit in here?
 
CNCabej <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:

> Cancer is generally considered to be an abnormal growth of
> cells caused by mutations in DNA induced by carcinogenic
> substances, viral oncogenes, ionizing radiations etc.
> Although evidence has been insufficient, and it has also
> been argued that often this relationship was not seen, the
> mutational theory of cancer is the explanation we find in
> every textbook. A recent experiment raises doubts about
> the validity of the dogma. Investigators show that
> mutation in the Ha-ras-1 gene is sometime found in normal
> mammary gland and is absent in cancerous cells.

"[...] it was also absent in *some* tumors" is what
they wrote.

I.e. this particular mutation was probably not the sole
causal factor.

> Here is the abstract published in the Journal of Cell
> Science on March , 2 2004.
>
> THE STROMA AS A CRUCIAL TARGET IN RAT MAMMARY GLAND
> CARCINOGENESIS
>
> Maricel V. Maffini1, Ana M. Soto1,*, Janine M. Calabro1,
> Angelo A. Ucci2 and Carlos Sonnenschein1
>
> A complex network of interactions between the stroma, the
> extracellular matrix and the epithelium drives mammary
> gland development and function. Two main assumptions in
> chemical carcinogenesis of the mammary gland have been
> that carcinogens induce neoplasia by causing mutations in
> the DNA of the epithelial cells and that the alterations
> of tissue architecture observed in neoplasms are a
> consequence of this primary mutational event. Here, we use
> a rat mammary tissue recombination model and the chemical
> carcinogen N-nitrosomethylurea (NMU) to determine whether
> the primary target of the carcinogen is the epithelium,
> the stroma or both tissue compartments. Mammary epithelial
> cells were exposed in vitro either to the carcinogen or
> vehicle before being transplanted into the cleared fat
> pads of rats exposed to carcinogen or vehicle. We observed
> that neoplastic transformation of these mammary epithelial
> cells occurred only when the stroma was exposed in vivo to
> NMU, regardless of whether or not the epithelial cells
> were exposed to the carcinogen. Mammary epithelial cells
> exposed in vitro to the carcinogen formed phenotypically
> normal ducts when injected into a non-treated stroma.
> Mutation in the Ha-ras-1 gene did not correlate with
> initiation of neoplasia. Not only was it often found in
> both cleared mammary fat pads of vehicle-treated animals
> and intact mammary glands of untreated animals, but it was
> also absent in some tumors. Our results suggest that the
> stroma is a crucial target of the carcinogen and that
> mutation in the Ha-ras-1 gene is neither necessary nor
> sufficient for tumor initiation.
>
>
> I am not predicting (although I am not excluding) that
> this will start a chain reaction of experiments designed
> to prove the EPIGENETIC origin of cancer, but it should
> make us rethink what is real (production of proteins) and
> what is fictious (determination of morphology, etiology of
> diseases, etc.) on the role of genes in biology.

I'm not sure I understand.

Isn't cancer thought to be caused by (among other things)
radiation.

It seems to me that radiation qualifies as "EPIGENETIC"
in origin.

I certainly can't see anything very revolutionary in the
study you cite.

I don't see how it raises any doubts at all about the
validity of the conventional explanations for cancer.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [email protected] Remove
lock to reply.
 
[email protected] (CNCabej) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Cancer is generally considered to be an abnormal growth of
> cells caused by mutations in DNA induced by carcinogenic
> substances, viral oncogenes, ionizing radiations etc.
> Although evidence has been insufficient, and it has also
> been argued that often this relationship was not seen, the
> mutational theory of cancer is the explanation we find in
> every textbook. A recent experiment raises doubts about
> the validity of the dogma. Investigators show that
> mutation in the Ha-ras-1 gene is sometime found in normal
> mammary gland and is absent in cancerous cells. Here is
> the abstract published in the Journal of Cell Science on
> March , 2 2004.

(snip)

> Our results suggest that the stroma is a crucial target of
> the carcinogen and that mutation in the Ha-ras-1 gene is
> neither necessary nor sufficient for tumor initiation.

> I am not predicting (although I am not excluding) that
> this will start a chain reaction of experiments designed
> to prove the EPIGENETIC origin of cancer, but it should
> make us rethink what is real (production of proteins) and
> what is fictious (determination of morphology, etiology of
> diseases, etc.) on the role of genes in biology.

The article, as I read it, has nothing to do with
epigenetic origins of cancer.It simply says that the
changes leading to the cancer occur in stromal cells rather
than epithelial cells.

Yours,

Bill Morse
 
"CNCabej" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Cancer is generally considered to be an abnormal growth of
> cells caused by mutations in DNA induced by carcinogenic
> substances, viral oncogenes,
ionizing
> radiations etc. Although evidence has been insufficient,
> and it has also
been
> argued that often this relationship was not seen, the
> mutational theory of cancer is the explanation we find in
> every textbook. A recent experiment
raises
> doubts about the validity of the dogma. Investigators show
> that mutation
in the
> Ha-ras-1 gene is sometime found in normal mammary gland
> and is absent in cancerous cells. Here is the abstract
> published in the Journal of Cell
Science
> on March , 2 2004.
<snip>

It might be helpful, to people trying to understand cancers
at the level of DNA, to look at that cancers as a legacy of
a specific adaptative behaviour arisen in to-us-animals-
ancestral populations of (in total a trillion^2 or so?)
amoebic (single-celled) individuals.

The thence arisen (and of cancer "prototypal") adaptive
behaviour (or response pattern) in question, can be
described as:
- A 'last ditch' gamble on reproducing an offspring (mutant
clone) that is genetically altered to the effect that the
impact of the frequently occurring "Inescapable
'Irritating Cloud' Type Stressors/Situations", that
trillions of amoebic individuals of ancestral population
frequently got caught-up in, became neutral (not
irritating), or even sometimes a source of nutrients, to
the offspring's adaptively altered genophenotype.

This 'inside-out' view of cancers came to me as a spin-off
from when I tried to imagine a simplest possible case of
being in a ***** ["selective (as specific as synapse-
situated) Hibernation" imploring type stressors/situations].

There is of course to be an emphasis on the unifying meaning
of the word "Irritating", and on the meaning of the "Cloud"
as being vast and longterm enough to cause an amoebic
creatures reflexive recoils form the Cloud's constituent
irritants to soon become a decidedly mal-adaptive
behavioural response (IOW the irritants would cause a futile
expenditure of vital, potentially reproductive, energy).
----

[Just for some SEPTIC humored and typically fuzzsilly
logical EPT fun, try sounding the ICTS with a sloopy Cech
pronounciation.%-].]
----

P