
How cancer was created by evolution - lookupmobile
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160601-is-cancer-inevitable
======
fiatmoney
The most horrifying story I know of is canine transmissible venereal cancer.
It used to be a dog, but was more evolutionarily successful evolving into a
tumor.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canine_transmissible_venereal_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canine_transmissible_venereal_tumor)

~~~
Ericson2314
Good thing it seems not too lethal?

~~~
lostlogin
It seems fairly debilitating in late stages. The Tasmanian devil's one seems
to be threatening the species, which is rather serious.

~~~
Ericson2314
Yeah I mean as horrifying as "std cancer" is, "species-threatening cancer" is
objectively worse.

------
danieltillett
I wish we spent more time studying why elephants [1] and bowhead whales [2]
don't get cancer more often than they do. If we knew exactly why their cells
are so resistant to cancer we would have some ideas of what we need to do to
make ours the same.

1\.
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26447685](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26447685)

2\.
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25565328](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25565328)

~~~
kirtanupa
We do know. A gene called p53 detects anomalies during DNA replication and can
"arrest" the growth or replication phase, or force apoptosis (cell death).

1\. [http://www.the-
scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/44215/...](http://www.the-
scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/44215/title/Explaining-Elephants--
Cancer-Resistance/) 2\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P53](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P53)

~~~
danieltillett
No we don't know. We know very little about the reasons for the relative
absence of cancer in these organisms. The absence of cancer is not solely due
to p53 differences, p53 just happens to be one of the few cancer preventing
genes studied to date in these animals.

~~~
cloudjacker
yeah but P53 redundancies are a pretty big deal in answering that question. We
have one P53 gene and if it gets damaged the cell gets to run amok. Those
other animals have like 12 p53 genes, and don't get cancer.

Correlation, meet causation.

What is the valid counterpoint?

~~~
danieltillett
The evidence that p53 duplication is an important mechanism is very
interesting, but we know p53 is not the sole answer. A good example of this is
both humans and mice have one copy of the p53 gene yet humans are vastly more
resistant to developing cancer than mice.

~~~
andrewjl
Could that be because humans are more complex from a biochemical standpoint
than mice?

~~~
danieltillett
It is because we have been selected for a much longer lifespan than mice.
Basically during human evolution there has been a selection process for
greater resistance to developing cancer - if we got cancer at the rate mice
get it almost nobody would make it to be a teenager.

Humans are by animal standards very long lived and naturally quite resistant
to developing cancer. We have many more anti-cancer biochemical and genetic
systems (antioncogenes) that work much better than the same systems in mice.

------
narrator
These two paragraphs don't follow:

"Figures like this show that cancer is not only extremely pervasive, but also
becoming more and more common. But why will so many people develop the disease
at some point in their lives?"

"The fact that tumours are constantly changing their genetic makeup is one of
the reasons why cancers are so hard to "kill".

The article's faulty reasoning seems to imply that cancer is more and more
common because of evolution. The scientist's work is examining the evolution
of a cancer's cells since its initial genesis in the patient. Unless cancer is
transmissible between individuals, there is no on-going evolution in cancer
that is making it more efficient across the pathology of multiple patients.
Thus, this doesn't add much to our knowledge of why cancer is more and more
common.

~~~
jjtheblunt
some cancers are transmissible (HPV-induced, for instance, and those of the
tasmanian devils, the list goes on and on, not kidding)

~~~
echelon
The cancer caused by HPV is not transmissible. The virus that causes it is.

Transmissible cancer is possible, but it's of almost negligible risk to humans
[1, 2].

[1]
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3228048/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3228048/)

[2] [http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2015/p1104-parasite-
tumors...](http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2015/p1104-parasite-tumors.html)

~~~
cma
There are four known ones:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clonally_transmissible_cancer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clonally_transmissible_cancer)

But we have started doing things like making stem-cell lines that have surface
markers removed and are compatible with almost anyone..

~~~
maxerickson
Fortunately we tend not to angrily bite each other as a greeting.

~~~
cma
They don't all require that:

> Canine transmissible venereal tumor (CTVT) is sexually transmitted cancer in
> dogs. It was experimentally transplanted between dogs in 1876 by M. A.
> Novinsky (1841–1914). A single malignant clone of CTVT cells has colonized
> dogs worldwide, representing the oldest known malignant cell line in
> continuous propagation.

------
brute
> _" The figures are even worse in the UK. According to Cancer Research UK,
> 54% of men and 48% of women will get cancer at some point in their lives."_

I am not sure if this is a good or a bad thing. If you accept that cancer is
simply the disease you get when you live long enough and don't die because of
anything else before (a view even supported by the article), a higher
percentage could also mean that all other things are in control now, and only
cancer and heart attacks are left.

~~~
brianwawok
So we hear about how eating healthy and exercise and yada yada help your
cancer and heart attack risks. How much would each go down if we were perfect?

My gut feeling is we could fix 75% of current heart attacks with weight
control + exercise + whatever, but only say 25% of cancer... i.e. that heart
attacks are very much in the group of things we know how to fix, whereas
cancer is still very much in the group of things we don't know how to fix.

But curious what the real numbers are...

~~~
dota_fanatic
Well, I suspect many things regarding health are outside of anyone's control.
Ie. if you're a living organism in 2016 on planet Earth, then you probably are
negatively affected due to pollution caused by humans, let individuals hope
they're lucky. There's lot of nasty stuff out there that we've made and let
loose on purpose or by accident. You can't have an ideally healthy lifestyle
when all up and down the ecological chain our handiwork is present (people
like to make money with the least amount of effort on their part).

------
sandworm101
One has to wonder why we age in the first place. No doubt we have evolved to
age because a species that does not die off cannot evolve. The advantages of
living longer eventually are outweighed by the pressure to evolve more
rapidly. So if we see age as an evolved trait, might cancer be part of that
endgame? Or at least, our growing susceptibility to cancer and other diseases
as we age evolved specifically to kill off the old so as to make room for new
generations.

This of course would have evolved long long ago, back before we were mammals.
As only a handful of the most primitive animals are essentially immortal
(jellyfish and the like) this would seem a very successful evolutionary trait.

~~~
Ericson2314
Why the downvotes? There are other articles (on HN recently!) that postulate
that aging is evolved.

Now yes cancer itself, as mutation caused, can't really be a trait of the host
(I go as far as to consider cancer cells a separate parasitic species). And
since many cancers are immortal, and the aging relates to a secession of cell
division in some sense they are opposite extremes with normal development in
the middle. But in being opposites they are related---end games / limitation
for multicellularity.

------
more_original
This reminds me of this culture of cancer cells from a woman who died from
cancer in the 50s. The cancer is still alive in laboratories today and there
were even proposals to classify it as a new species:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa)

~~~
saiya-jin
ex-gf was working with "her" cells some 6-8 years ago while researching some
rare type of anemia, back in Prague. Didn't know it's actually used worldwide.

one way to become immortal in some sense :)

~~~
masklinn
That is the name of Rebecca Skloot's excellent book on the subject: The
Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Immortal_Life_of_Henrietta...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Immortal_Life_of_Henrietta_Lacks))

------
tokenadult
From the article:

"In the US there has been a 25% decline in death rate in the last two decades.
'More than half of that decline is driven by cancer prevention activities,"
says Brawley.

"This points to the fact that some of the cancers that would previously have
killed people had been prevented. Almost a third of death from cancer in the
US has been attributed to cigarette smoking, for example. This makes tobacco
"the single most preventable cause of death in the world", according to Cancer
Research UK."

Never starting a smoking habit, or quitting a smoking habit if you have
already started, is a great way to prevent a lot cancer risk. Being moderate
(not excessive) in alcohol use helps a lot too.

[http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-
prevention](http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention)

------
noam87
> But a more telling reason for the rise is that humans, on average, live a
> lot longer than they used to. "If you live long enough you will get cancer,"
> says Biankin.

I keep hearing this, but do we have data that shows that cancer rates have not
changed _within age groups_?

Average lifespan is skewed by much higher infant mortality rates of the past:
an average lifespan of 45 doesn't mean everybody was dropping dead at 45; it
means more people were dying during their infancy and youth.

~~~
maxerickson
A 20 year old roman could expect to live to ~50:

[http://www.richardcarrier.info/lifetbl.html](http://www.richardcarrier.info/lifetbl.html)

In the US in 1900, a 20 year old could expect to live to ~62:

[http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html](http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html)

Today, a 20 year old can expect to make it to about 80.

So the gains aren't really limited to infant and child mortality. A
substantial portion of the gain has certainly come from improvements there
though.

~~~
LionessLover
But the gains at age may come from other areas and not from medicine. In this
talk

[http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/return-of-
the-m...](http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/return-of-the-microbes-
how-infections-are-once-more-taking-over)

the professor mentions as an aside (there is a transcript of the talk)

> _And what is interesting, if you take out the childhood mortality, the
> Victorian person between 1850 and 1880 lived slightly longer, if he was a
> male, than you do today._

Females had the risk if child birth, an area where medicine _did_ do a lot.

It shows that sanitation/hygiene and food seem to have done a lot for lower
mortality outside the risk factors of being very young and/or giving birth.

And that was before antibiotics! Which is nice to know when we get another
doom article about the end of antibiotics, because it seems that while sure
individuals will suffer it by no means warrants predictions of doom for
mankind.

------
astazangasta
While Swanton's work is great in revealing how difficult it is to contain a
tumor and how evolution allows escape from therapy and in exposing genetic
diversity in tumors, the idea that you can "chop at the root of the tree" is
(in my opinion) bunkum. First of all, even if you target trunk mutations you
can evolve resistance. Second, you can't just keep loading up drugs into
patients; they can often barely tolerate one of these therapies (which have
off-target effects on normal cells), combination therapies compound the
problem.

------
ekianjo
All this talk about tobacco but nothing about alcohol, for which there is much
stronger evidence of DNA damage? Does the BBC have a hidden conflict of
interest?

~~~
lunula
Do you have a link supporting the DNA damage and alcohol relationship? That's
interesting.

Lung cancers are particular in that they feature an incredible amount of
somatic mutation. If I remember its at least 10x as much as the next high-
mutation rate cancer. Probably more even. Smoking tobacco provides a melange
of mutagens: complex aromatic DNA adducts that result from combustion, heavy
oils, and radiation from potassium heavy fertilizer. These would be enough to
cause problems alone, but to make things as bad as possible the active
ingredient is a critical signaling molecule in the cell cycle, which after
copious application is likely to induce the survival of cells unresponsive to
it. These cells are less likely to play nice with others.

~~~
fsloth
"Do you have a link supporting the DNA damage and alcohol relationship? That's
interesting."

Not the op but alcoholics are likelier to develop e.g. pancreatic cancer. I
believe the direct mechanism, though, is not explained. "About 7 out of 10
cases of chronic pancreatitis are due to long term heavy drinking":

[http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-
cancer/type/pancreatic...](http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-
cancer/type/pancreatic-cancer/about/pancreatic-cancer-risks-and-causes)

------
msdos
_In the US, the lifetime risk of developing cancer is 42% in men and 38% in
women_

Woah, this isn't far from saying living in the US isn't far from a coin toss
for a death sentence.

~~~
whamlastxmas
There are lots of types of cancers. Some of the most common types (skin and
prostate) aren't really much of a detriment to life expectancy.

~~~
msdos
This explains it. Thanks.

------
Kip9000
What if cancer _is_ the evolution in action. Evolution has to go through a
huge number of permutations to get a viable macro organism. By trying to cure
cancer, we are trying to withhold the natural selection in some form and
preventing the next stage of evolution.

~~~
eru
There is no such thing as `next stage of evolution'. Evolution doesn't have
stages.

Also, we are only interested in curing cancer in humans (and perhaps at most
livestock). Wild animals will still get cancer.

(Do plants and funghi etc get cancer?)

~~~
Kip9000
Humans evolution can be characterised into major stages from ape to
homosapien.

~~~
quonn
No it can't. There were only many small adaptions, not stages. Stages also
suggests that there is a next stage to evolve to which is not correct.

~~~
Kip9000
You are conflating 'evolution is directionless' with 'no stages'. Stages can
only be seen when looking back at the evolutionary history.

For example:

Study reveals human body has gone through four stages of evolution
([http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-08/bu-
srh083115....](http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-08/bu-
srh083115.php))

[http://www.pnas.org/content/112/37/11524.abstract](http://www.pnas.org/content/112/37/11524.abstract)

~~~
eru
Stages are a human abstraction that help us understand and make sense.

~~~
Kip9000
You can say that for just about everything

------
albrtpro
The sad truth is above 80% of the food you can find in a U.S. supermarket is
transgenic or otherwise called GMO. All sorts of carbohydrate sources - which
comprise a huge part of the U.S. diet - from cereals, refined sugars and the
base of the american diet: corn fructose. Vegetables and meat that's been
grown with also GMO feed has been genetically modified and released to the
public without enough testing. One of the consequences is cancer. Cancer grows
because the quality of your food, the biotechnology embedded in it and
american eating habits are incredibly unhealthy and unsuited for its
lifestyle. Research the lobbying between FDA and Monsanto, research the
correlation between meat consumption and risk of heart disease and cancer,
research the recommended daily intake of fibre and compare it to the average
american diet, see the correlation with cancer. There lies the answer. This
article is a lie. Monopolies ALWAYS create complexity (Zero to One - Peter
Thiel). Here are what your typical bullshitting articles say: \- Cancer is a
living entity, like a virus. \- Cancer is way more complex than we thought! \-
Cancer keeps growing and it's unstoppable \- We still don't know how cancer is
created

Start here: [https://nutritionfacts.org](https://nutritionfacts.org)

I lived this on my own skin with my mum getting cancer. This article has been
completely lobbied by the pharmaceutical industry. No doubt.

~~~
jrlocke
There is certainly no scientific consensus that GMO/transgenic food causes
cancer; if anything the community believes it does not. Perhaps we currently
have flaws in implementation (e.g., Roundup-ready crops could lead to
increased human exposure to the herbicide), but why is GMO itself a problem?
Adding genes from harmless cold water fish to harmless standard tomatoes in
order to produce cold resistant tomatoes, for example, seems to be a safe
procedure. I would love to be pointed to credible studies that contradict my
way of thinking about this.

~~~
albrtpro
You are right about consensus. But I invite you to investigate how big the
cancer industry is in worth/year and historically how it all has been created,
and who owns it. Also to study the history of the American food
industrialisation. Also to investigate who owns and influences the top media
sources in the world. To be clear the point I was trying to make wasn't "GMO
is the only cause of cancer" or "Genetical modifications on foods produce
cancer". My point is "Current GMO products consumption is one of the
contributors to cancer" \- I'm not stating how, I'm stating that it has an
effect. I know far more about the effects of meat and dairy than I do about
GMO. But somewhere to get started would be here:
[http://nutritionfacts.org/video/are-gmos-safe-the-case-of-
ro...](http://nutritionfacts.org/video/are-gmos-safe-the-case-of-roundup-
ready-soy/) (The page has links to all the scientific sources cited)

~~~
xenadu02
This is pure quackery with no scientific basis.

