An Integrative Approach Toward Biology, Organisms, and Cancer
Ana M Soto2018, Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Abstract
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...
Related papers
The tissue organization field theory of cancer: A testable replacement for the somatic mutation theory
BioEssays, 2011
The somatic mutation theory (SMT) of cancer has been and remains the prevalent theory attempting to explain how neoplasms arise and progress. This theory proposes that cancer is a clonal, cell-based disease, and implicitly assumes that quiescence is the default state of cells in multicellular organisms. The SMT has not been rigorously tested, and several lines of evidence raise questions that are not addressed by this theory. Herein, we propose experimental strategies that may validate the SMT. We also call attention to an alternative theory of carcinogenesis, the tissue organization field theory (TOFT), which posits that cancer is a tissue-based disease and that proliferation is the default state of all cells. Based on epistemological and experimental evidence, we argue that the TOFT compellingly explains carcinogenesis, while placing it within an evolutionarily relevant context.
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 carcino-genesis. 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.
Emergentism as a default: Cancer as a problem of tissue organization
Journal of Biosciences, 2005
During the last fifty years the dominant stance in experimental biology has been reductionism. For the most part, research programs were based on the notion that genes were in 'the driver's seat' controlling the developmental program and determining normalcy and disease (genetic reductionism and genetic determinism). Philosophers were the first to realize that the belief that the Mendelian genes were reduced to DNA molecules was questionable. Soon after these pronouncements, experimental data confirmed their misgivings. The optimism of molecular biologists, fueled by early success in tackling relatively simple problems, has now been tempered by the difficulties found when attempting to understand complex biological problems.
Theories of carcinogenesis: An emerging perspective
Seminars in Cancer Biology, 2008
Four decades ago Leslie Foulds remarked that "Experimental analysis has produced an alarming mass of empirical facts without providing an adequate language for their communication or effective concepts for their synthesis". Examining the relevance of the data avalanche we all generate and are subjected to in the context of the premises and predictions of the current cancer theories may help resolve this paradox. This goal is becoming increasingly relevant given the looming attempts to rigorously model and parameterize crucial events in carcinogenesis (microenvironmental conditions, cellular proliferation and motility), which will require the adoption of reliable premises on which to base those efforts. This choice must be made a priori, as premises are not testable, and data are not free of the theoretical frame used to gather them. In this review we provide a critical analysis of the two main currents in cancer research, one centered at the cellular level of biological organization, the somatic mutation theory, which conceptualizes carcinogenesis as a problem of cell proliferation control, and the other centered at the tissue level, the tissue organization filed theory, which considers carcinogenesis a process akin to organogenesis gone awry.
Over a century of cancer research: Inconvenient truths and promising leads
PLOS Biology, 2020
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. "About 30 years ago there was much talk that Geologists ought only to observe & not theorise; & I well remember some one saying, that at this rate a man might as well go into a gravel-pit & count the pebbles & describe their colours. How odd it is that every one should not see that all observation must be for or against some view, if it is to be of any service."-Charles Darwin letter to Henry Fawcett.
Paradoxes in Carcinogenesis: There Is Light at the End of That Tunnel!
Disruptive science and technology, 2013
The exchange of opinions motivated by Dr. Baker's article "Paradoxes in carcinogenesis should spur new avenues of research: An historical perspective" illustrates the reasons why the field of cancer research is stuck in a dead end. This paralysis presents a rich opportunity for philosophers, historians and sociologists of science to decipher the whys of this impasse. On the strictly biological front, we suggest to reinstate in cancer research the time proven practice so productive in the physical sciences of discarding wrong hypotheses and theories. We share the suggestion by Dr. Baker to stop trying to unify the two main theories of carcinogenesis, i.e., the Somatic Mutation Theory (SMT) and the Tissue Organization Field Theory (TOFT) because they are incompatible. Dr. Baker suggests breaching the impasse by investing in paradox-driven research. We discuss the barriers to the implementation of this novel strategy, and the significant impact that this strategy will hav...
The Role of Theory in Cancer Research
The foundation for biomedical research is the theory of evolution by natural selection. Theoretical approaches to cancer can build on the previous contributions of evolutionary medicine, while also recognizing the fundamental differences between cancer and other disease types. There are pitfalls to adopting habitual approaches to medicine without carefully considering their applicability to cancer in light of those differences. In particular, the approaches of molecular reductionism and targeted cytotoxins have special limitations in cancer medicine. Applied evolutionary theory suggests alternatives that also deserve consideration. The theoretical understanding of cancer is largely settled. Its acceptance by clinicians has been slow, but is gaining ground as more applications become apparent both to research, and to the clinic. Promising areas for further progress in applying theory to research include observational studies of human cancer evolution, as well as experimental applications to animal models of cancer evolution both in vivo and in vitro. One promising area for progress in cancer treatment from applied theory in the near term is development and testing of 'anti-social' therapies that reduce the evolution of acquired drug resistance in cancer. However, a key lesson of the evolutionary perspective is that any evolving malignancy is so adaptable and recalcitrant that it is better avoided than treated. This argues for promoting cancer prevention above treatment as a primary focus of cancer medicine. One promising direction for progress in cancer prevention from applied theory in the near term is development of techniques to monitor somatic genetic instability, and eventually to control its causes.
Chaos, Adaptation and Information are the Main Pillars of Carcinogenesis
2019
Cancer, a disease of multicellular organisms, probably developed almost immediately following the transition from unicellular to metazoan life, about one billion years ago. Great efforts have been made to understand the carcinogenesis for many years. In this paper, We tried to explain the cancer based on “chaos”, “adaptation” and “information” with the context of new literature findings.
A Systems Biology Approach to Cancer: Fractals, Attractors, and Nonlinear Dynamics
OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology, 2011
Cancer begins to be recognized as a highly complex disease, and advanced knowledge of the carcinogenic process claims to be acquired by means of supragenomic strategies. Experimental data evidence that tumor emerges from disruption of tissue architecture, and it is therefore consequential that the tissue level should be considered the proper level of observation for carcinogenic studies. This paradigm shift imposes to move from a reductionistic to a systems biology approach. Indeed, cell phenotypes are emergent modes arising through collective nonlinear interactions among different cellular and microenvironmental components, generally described by a phase space diagram, where stable states (attractors) are embedded into a landscape model. Within this framework cell states and cell transitions are generally conceived as mainly specified by the gene-regulatory network. However, the system's dynamics cannot be reduced to only the integrated functioning of the genomeproteome network, and the cell-stroma interacting system must be taken into consideration in order to give a more reliable picture. As cell form represents the spatial geometric configuration shaped by an integrated set of cellular and environmental cues participating in biological functions control, it is conceivable that fractal-shape parameters could be considered as ''omics'' descriptors of the cell-stroma system. Within this framework it seems that function follows form, and not the other way around. Paradigm Instability A central feature of the prevailing interpretative paradigm for carcinogenesis is the underlying notion that cancer originates at the cellular level of organization. This approach roots in the work of Theodor Boveri and Ernest Tyzzer, who first used the term ''somatic mutation'' connecting it with cancer (Boveri, 1914; Wunderlich, 2007). The somatic mutation theory (SMT) posits that cancer is related in a deterministic fashion to a point-mutation of a proto-oncogene and results from a progressive accumulation of mutations in somatic cells that lead to the ''cancer phenotype,'' characterized by ''specific,'' both molecular and functional (gene expression, metabolic phenotype), features (Fearon and Vogelstein, 1990; Hahn et al., 1999). The acquired transformation is thought to confer some kind of ''selective advantage'' and is then transmitted to cell progeny. Tumor progression is therefore explained as a sort of microevolutionary Darwinian process leading to different and more malignant phenotypes (Michor er al., 2004).
Commentary: The multistage model of carcinogenesis, Peto's paradox and evolution
International Journal of Epidemiology, 2015
The multistage (or multistep) model of carcinogenesis is the cornerstone of our understanding of how cancer is initiated. This model of sequential mutation driving carcinogenesis is generally considered to have originated with
Related papers
Somatic mutation theory of carcinogenesis: Why it should be dropped and replaced
Molecular Carcinogenesis, 2000
An Emergence Framework of Carcinogenesis
Frontiers in Oncology, 2017
Experimental paradigms provide the framework for the understanding of cancer, and drive research and treatment, but are rarely considered by clinicians. The somatic mutation theory (SMT), in which cancer is considered a genetic disease, has been the predominant traditional model of cancer for over 50 years. More recently, alternative theories have been proposed, such as tissue organization field theory (TOFT), evolutionary models, and inflammatory models. Key concepts within the various models have led to them being difficult to reconcile. Progressively, it has been recognized that biological systems cannot be fully explained by the physicochemical properties of their constituent parts. There is an increasing call for a ‘systems’ approach. Incorporating the concepts of ‘emergence’, ‘systems’, ‘thermodynamics’, and ‘chaos’, a single integrated framework for carcinogenesis has been developed, enabling existing theories to become compatible as alternative mechanisms, facilitating the integration of bioinformatics and providing a structure in which translational research can flow from both ‘benchtop to bedside’ and ‘bedside to benchtop’. In this review, a basic understanding of the key concepts of ‘emergence’, ‘systems’, ‘system levels’, ‘complexity’, ‘thermodynamics’, ‘entropy’, ‘chaos’, and ‘fractals’ is provided. Non-linear mathematical equations are included where possible to demonstrate compatibility with bioinformatics. Twelve principles that define the ‘emergence framework of carcinogenesis’ are developed, with principles 1–10 encapsulating the key concepts upon which the framework is built and their application to carcinogenesis. Principle 11 relates the framework to cancer progression. Principle 12 relates to the application of the framework to translational research. The ‘emergence framework of carcinogenesis’ collates current paradigms, concepts, and evidence around carcinogenesis into a single framework that incorporates previously incompatible viewpoints and ideas. Any researcher, scientist, or clinician involved in research, treatment, or prevention of cancer can employ this framework.
The somatic mutation theory of cancer: growing problems with the paradigm
Bioessays, 2004
The somatic mutation theory has been the prevailing paradigm in cancer research for the last 50 years. Its premises are: (1) cancer is derived from a single somatic cell that has accumulated multiple DNA mutations, (2) the default state of cell proliferation in metazoa is quiescence, and (3) cancer is a disease of cell proliferation caused by mutations in genes that control proliferation and the cell cycle. From this compelling simplicity, an increasingly complicated picture has emerged as more than 100 oncogenes and 30 tumor suppressor genes have been identified. To accommodate this complexity, additional ad hoc explanations have been postulated. After a critical review of the data gathered from this perspective, an alternative research program has been proposed. It is based on the tissue organization field theory, the premises of which are that carcinogenesis represents a problem of tissue organization, comparable to organogenesis, and that proliferation is the default state of all cells. The merits of these competing theories are evaluated herein. BioEssays 26:1097–1107, 2004. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
CANCER THEORIES
Despite intense research efforts that have provided enormous insight, cancer continues to be a poorly understood disease. There has been much debate over whether the cancerous state can be said to originate in a single cell or whether it is a reflection of aberrant behaviour on the part of a 'society of cells'. This article presents, in the form of a debate conducted among the authors, three views of how the problem might be addressed. We do not claim that the views exhaust all possibilities. These views are (a) the tissue organization field theory (TOFT) that is based on a breakdown of tissue organization involving many cells from different embryological layers, (b) the cancer stem cell (CSC) hypothesis that focuses on genetic and epigenetic changes that take place within single cells, and (c) the proposition that rewiring of the cell's protein interaction networks mediated by intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) drives the tumorigenic process. The views are based on different philosophical approaches. In detail, they differ on some points and agree on others. It is left to the reader to decide whether one approach to understanding cancer appears more promising than the other.
New hypotheses for cancer generation and progression
Medical Hypotheses, 2021
Since Nixon famously declared war on cancer in 1971, trillions of dollars have been spent on cancer research but the life expectancy for most forms of cancer is still poor. There are many reasons for the partial success of cancer translational research. One of these can be the predominance of certain paradigms that potentially narrowed the vision in interpreting cancer. The main paradigm to explain carcinogenesis is based on DNA mutations, which is well interpreted by the somatic mutation theory (SMT). However, a different theory claims that cancer is instead a tissue disease as proposed by the Tissue Organization Field Theory (TOFT). Here, we propose new hypotheses to explain the origin and pathogenesis of cancer. In this perspective, the systemic-evolutionary theory of cancer (SETOC) is discussed as well as how the microenvironment affects the adaptation of transformed cells and the reversion to a unicellular-like or embryo-like phenotype.
SMT or TOFT? How the Two Main Theories of Carcinogenesis are Made (Artificially) Incompatible
SMT or TOFT? How the Two Main Theories of Carcinogenesis are Made (Artificially) Incompatible, 2015
The building of a global model of carcinogenesis is one of modern biology's greatest challenges. The traditional somatic mutation theory (SMT) is now supplemented by a new approach, called the Tissue Organization Field Theory (TOFT). According to TOFT, the original source of cancer is loss of tissue organization rather than genetic mutations. In this paper, we study the argumentative strategy used by the advocates of TOFT to impose their view. In particular, we criticize their claim of incompatibility used to justify the necessity to definitively reject SMT. First, we note that since it is difficult to build a non-ambiguous experimental demonstration of the superiority of TOFT, its partisans add epistemo-logical and metaphysical arguments to the debate. This argumentative strategy allows them to defend the necessity of a paradigm shift, with TOFT superseding SMT. To do so, they introduce a notion of incompatibility, which they actually use as the Kuhnian notion of incommensurability. To justify this so-called incompatibility between the two theories of cancer, they move the debate to a metaphysical ground by assimilating the controversy to a fundamental opposition between reductionism and organicism. We show here that this argumentative strategy is specious, because it does not demonstrate clearly that TOFT is an or-ganicist theory. Since it shares with SMT its vocabulary, its ontology and its methodology, it appears that a claim of incompatibility based on this metaphysical plan is not fully justified in the present state of the debate. We conclude that it is more cogent to argue that the two theories are compatible, both biologically and metaphysically. We propose to consider that TOFT and SMT describe two distinct and compatible causal pathways to carcinogenesis. This view is coherent with the existence of integrative approaches, and suggests that they have a higher epistemic value than the two theories taken separately.
One hundred years of somatic mutation theory of carcinogenesis: Is it time to switch?
BioEssays, 2014
Understanding cancer as a formless phenomenon
Medical Hypotheses - MED HYPOTHESES, 2002
Complex living organisms possess qualities that cannot be reduced to the simple addition of quantities. Among such qualities are a specific form and a specific organization. Thinking about morphological aspects is a prime example of the qualitative approach to biological matters. Such a morphogenetic perspective has been continuously developed, both theoretically and experimentally, along the past century, even though it is now rather marginal within a mainstream dominated by molecular biology. However, the morphogenetic outlook can be applied to the understanding of complex biological phenomena, such as cancer. This phenomenon is currently explained as a cellular problem caused by specific gene mutations and/or specific loss of gene regulation. Nevertheless, cancer is a problem that affects the whole organism. Contemporary research based on the genetic paradigm of cancer causation has led to paradoxes and anomalies that cannot be explained within such a reductionist paradigm. Here ...
Competing views on cancer
Journal of Biosciences, 2014
Despite intense research efforts that have provided enormous insight, cancer continues to be a poorly understood disease. There has been much debate over whether the cancerous state can be said to originate in a single cell or whether it is a reflection of aberrant behaviour on the part of a 'society of cells'. This article presents, in the form of a debate conducted among the authors, three views of how the problem might be addressed. We do not claim that the views exhaust all possibilities. These views are (a) the tissue organization field theory (TOFT) that is based on a breakdown of tissue organization involving many cells from different embryological layers, (b) the cancer stem cell (CSC) hypothesis that focuses on genetic and epigenetic changes that take place within single cells, and (c) the proposition that rewiring of the cell's protein interaction networks mediated by intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) drives the tumorigenic process. The views are based on different philosophical approaches. In detail, they differ on some points and agree on others. It is left to the reader to decide whether one approach to understanding cancer appears more promising than the other.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.