Paradoxes in carcinogenesis: New opportunities for research directions

BackgroundThe prevailing paradigm in cancer research is the somatic mutation theory that posits that cancer begins with a single mutation in a somatic cell followed by successive mutations. Much cancer research involves refining the somatic mutation theory with an ever increasing catalog of genetic changes. The problem is that such research may miss paradoxical aspects of carcinogenesis for which there is no likely explanation under the somatic mutation theory. These paradoxical aspects offer opportunities for new research directions that should not be ignored.DiscussionVarious paradoxes related to the somatic mutation theory of carcinogenesis are discussed: (1) the presence of large numbers of spatially distinct precancerous lesions at the onset of promotion, (2) the large number of genetic instabilities found in hyperplastic polyps not considered cancer, (3) spontaneous regression, (4) higher incidence of cancer in patients with xeroderma pigmentosa but not in patients with other comparable defects in DNA repair, (5) lower incidence of many cancers except leukemia and testicular cancer in patients with Down's syndrome, (6) cancer developing after normal tissue is transplanted to other parts of the body or next to stroma previously exposed to carcinogens, (7) the lack of tumors when epithelial cells exposed to a carcinogen were transplanted next to normal stroma, (8) the development of cancers when Millipore filters of various pore sizes were was inserted under the skin of rats, but only if the holes were sufficiently small. For the latter paradox, a microarray experiment is proposed to try to better understand the phenomena.SummaryThe famous physicist Niels Bohr said "How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress." The same viewpoint should apply to cancer research. It is easy to ignore this piece of wisdom about the means to advance knowledge, but we do so at our peril.

[1]  R. Bates,et al.  Importance of a smooth surface in carcinogenesis by plastic film. , 1966, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[2]  Ana M Soto,et al.  The stroma as a crucial target in rat mammary gland carcinogenesis , 2004, Journal of Cell Science.

[3]  R T Prehn,et al.  Cancers beget mutations versus mutations beget cancers. , 1994, Cancer research.

[4]  D. Satgé,et al.  Down's syndrome protects against breast cancer: Is a constitutional cell microenvironment the key? , 2005, International journal of cancer.

[5]  G. Dakubo,et al.  Clinical implications and utility of field cancerization , 2007, Cancer Cell International.

[6]  S. Emmert,et al.  Nucleotide excision repair and cancer , 2006, Journal of Molecular Histology.

[7]  J. Cairns The origin of human cancers , 1981, Nature.

[8]  S. Lavelle,et al.  Effect of film size on production of foreign body sarcoma by perforated film implants. , 1997, Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine.

[9]  P. Hanawalt,et al.  Preferential DNA repair of an active gene in human cells. , 1986, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[10]  Eero Pukkala,et al.  Cancer incidence of persons with down syndrome in Finland: A population‐based study , 2006, International journal of cancer.

[11]  P. Walker Cancer—Science and Society , 1980, British Journal of Cancer.

[12]  H. L. Lombard SOME PROBLEMS OF LUNG CANCER. , 1964, Lancet.

[13]  Art Hobson,et al.  Seven Ideas That Shook the Universe , 1985 .

[14]  F. Akiyama,et al.  Spontaneous “healing” of breast cancer , 2005, Breast cancer.

[15]  J. Sundberg,et al.  Squamous cell hyperplastic foci: precursors of cutaneous papillomas induced in SENCAR mice by a two-stage carcinogenesis regimen. , 1998, Cancer research.

[16]  C. Boland,et al.  How many mutations does it take to make a tumor? , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[17]  C. Larabell,et al.  Reversion of the Malignant Phenotype of Human Breast Cells in Three-Dimensional Culture and In Vivo by Integrin Blocking Antibodies , 1997, The Journal of cell biology.

[18]  Stefan Michiels,et al.  Prediction of cancer outcome with microarrays: a multiple random validation strategy , 2005, The Lancet.

[19]  K. Brand,et al.  Tumorigenesis by Millipore filters in mice: histology and ultrastructure of tissue reactions as related to pore size. , 1973, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[20]  D. Pinkel,et al.  The Stromal Proteinase MMP3/Stromelysin-1 Promotes Mammary Carcinogenesis , 1999, Cell.

[21]  J. Orr,et al.  The mechanism of chemical carcinogenesis, with particular reference to the time of development of irreversible changes in the epithelial cells. , 1958, British medical bulletin.

[22]  E. J. Andrews Possible importance of detergent in Millipore filter carcinogenesis. , 1972, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[23]  C. Sonnenschein,et al.  Emergentism as a default: Cancer as a problem of tissue organization , 2005, Journal of Biosciences.

[24]  M. Nowak,et al.  Dynamics of cancer progression , 2004, Nature Reviews Cancer.

[25]  K. Illmensee,et al.  Totipotency and normal differentiation of single teratocarcinoma cells cloned by injection into blastocysts. , 1976, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[26]  M. Barcellos-Hoff,et al.  Irradiated mammary gland stroma promotes the expression of tumorigenic potential by unirradiated epithelial cells. , 2000, Cancer research.

[27]  M. Blagosklonny,et al.  Molecular theory of cancer , 2005, Cancer biology & therapy.

[28]  C. Sonnenschein,et al.  Somatic mutation theory of carcinogenesis: Why it should be dropped and replaced , 2000, Molecular carcinogenesis.

[29]  N. Petrelli,et al.  The onset and extent of genomic instability in sporadic colorectal tumor progression. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[30]  Stuart G. Baker,et al.  Identifying genes that contribute most to good classification in microarrays , 2006, BMC Bioinformatics.

[31]  S. Rasmussen,et al.  Mortality associated with Down's syndrome in the USA from 1983 to 1997: a population-based study , 2002, The Lancet.

[32]  F. Bischoff,et al.  CARCINOGENESIS THROUGH SOLID STATE SURFACES. , 1964, Progress in experimental tumor research.

[33]  Ana M Soto,et al.  The somatic mutation theory of cancer: growing problems with the paradigm? , 2004, BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology.

[34]  H. Hasle,et al.  Risks of leukaemia and solid tumours in individuals with Down's syndrome , 2000, The Lancet.

[35]  David J. Hand,et al.  Classifier Technology and the Illusion of Progress , 2006, math/0606441.