From an extract of the book The invisible sex: Uncovering the true roles of Woman in Prehistory (review in Nature 3rd of May issue).
"science is not truth; it is, instead, a method for diminishing ignorance"
Friday, May 18, 2007
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
A 3D model of human breast cancer
This has been covered in a few places like the BBC and ScienceDaily. It seems that some researchers at Queen Mary College in London have recently come with a non animal 3D human breast cancer model.
This is interesting at more than one level. Their research was funded by a research charity (Dr Hadwen Trust) that supports the development of methods that avoid animal experiments. Working with rats is not that satisfactory for ethical reasons and also because there are many cases in which the results of rat experiments cannot be extrapolated to humans (seems we are not so similar in some respects after all). It is also much more realistic than just taking some human cancer cells and studying them on a petri dish.
Being capable of performing experiments using realistic 3D models quickly and efficiently is one of the holy grails of theoreticians since it would make experimental validation of our models much easier (confusingly enough what theoreticians call model, eg, equations or computer rules, is not what experimentalists understand as a model, eg. rat, arabidopsis or drosophila). This validation is quite complicated as I have already mentioned in another post. Making this validation easier and more convenient will go a long way in terms of making our work more reliable and quantitative.
This is interesting at more than one level. Their research was funded by a research charity (Dr Hadwen Trust) that supports the development of methods that avoid animal experiments. Working with rats is not that satisfactory for ethical reasons and also because there are many cases in which the results of rat experiments cannot be extrapolated to humans (seems we are not so similar in some respects after all). It is also much more realistic than just taking some human cancer cells and studying them on a petri dish.
Being capable of performing experiments using realistic 3D models quickly and efficiently is one of the holy grails of theoreticians since it would make experimental validation of our models much easier (confusingly enough what theoreticians call model, eg, equations or computer rules, is not what experimentalists understand as a model, eg. rat, arabidopsis or drosophila). This validation is quite complicated as I have already mentioned in another post. Making this validation easier and more convenient will go a long way in terms of making our work more reliable and quantitative.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Somatic and non somatic evolution
Many ecologists study evolution of the non somatic kind. That is, evolution that happens as a consequence of mutations in the germ line of multicellular organisms during reproduction. The evolution of cancer is of the somatic kind. This means that it affects cells of the soma, the ones that are not transmitted to the offspring.
Some time ago I got this paper from Crespi and Summers (nicely enough, publicly available). I will probably talk about this paper, entitled Evolutionary biology of cancer (and presented to a readership of ecologists) some other time but I liked a table in which they compare somatic and non somatic evolution.
Phenotypic variation. In most ecosystems of multicellular organisms variation is attained through genetic recombination (sexual reproduction) and mutation. In a tumour we also have to consider also genomic instability (a hypothesis by which some individuals have a higher probability of mutation) and epigenetic alteration (the environment also affects the behaviour of cells in ways that could make tumour progression to cancer more or less likely).
Selection. In most ecosystems it means dealing better with competitors, avoiding predators, parasites and producing many fit successors. In a tumour means being good at competing for resources with other cells (tumour or otherwise), avoiding the immune system and coping with environmental signals designed to maintain homeostasis.
Drift. That is similar in both types of evolution.
Inheritance. In many cases that involves the transmission of genes from parents to offspring through sexual recombination. In tumours there is no sexual reproduction.
Result. In most ecosystems the result is adaptation across generations. In a tumour the end results is in many cases the death of the individual and thus of all the cells in the body, including the cancer cells.
I think that this is a quite interesting and useful comparison of evolution although I am not sure I agree with all the differences suggested. In my view the evolution in a tumour does not differ much from other types of evolution. For instance, epigenetic changes do play a role in other ecosystems asides from cancer. Genetic instability is not a source of variation, genetic mutations are (genetic instability just makes genetic mutations more likely). Also the fact that tumour cells reproduce asexually is not a big difference with more conventional ecosystems. At the end of the day most of the biomass of the planet is made of bacteria that reproduces asexually. What it is true is that as far as we know, the end result of cancer evolution is either the end of the cancer itself or the end of the individual that hosts the cancer and thus the end of the cancer cells. Thus the only way tumour cells have to be successful is to evolve in such a way that the life of the host is not threatened (you can call that tumour sustainable growth).
Some time ago I got this paper from Crespi and Summers (nicely enough, publicly available). I will probably talk about this paper, entitled Evolutionary biology of cancer (and presented to a readership of ecologists) some other time but I liked a table in which they compare somatic and non somatic evolution.
Phenotypic variation. In most ecosystems of multicellular organisms variation is attained through genetic recombination (sexual reproduction) and mutation. In a tumour we also have to consider also genomic instability (a hypothesis by which some individuals have a higher probability of mutation) and epigenetic alteration (the environment also affects the behaviour of cells in ways that could make tumour progression to cancer more or less likely).
Selection. In most ecosystems it means dealing better with competitors, avoiding predators, parasites and producing many fit successors. In a tumour means being good at competing for resources with other cells (tumour or otherwise), avoiding the immune system and coping with environmental signals designed to maintain homeostasis.
Drift. That is similar in both types of evolution.
Inheritance. In many cases that involves the transmission of genes from parents to offspring through sexual recombination. In tumours there is no sexual reproduction.
Result. In most ecosystems the result is adaptation across generations. In a tumour the end results is in many cases the death of the individual and thus of all the cells in the body, including the cancer cells.
I think that this is a quite interesting and useful comparison of evolution although I am not sure I agree with all the differences suggested. In my view the evolution in a tumour does not differ much from other types of evolution. For instance, epigenetic changes do play a role in other ecosystems asides from cancer. Genetic instability is not a source of variation, genetic mutations are (genetic instability just makes genetic mutations more likely). Also the fact that tumour cells reproduce asexually is not a big difference with more conventional ecosystems. At the end of the day most of the biomass of the planet is made of bacteria that reproduces asexually. What it is true is that as far as we know, the end result of cancer evolution is either the end of the cancer itself or the end of the individual that hosts the cancer and thus the end of the cancer cells. Thus the only way tumour cells have to be successful is to evolve in such a way that the life of the host is not threatened (you can call that tumour sustainable growth).
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Autophagy and cancer
This is a new cellular mechanism I did not know about: autophagy. Nature's issue of April 12th (I am bit behind I know) has an interesting article in the section Q&A on autophagy and its role in cancer.
Autophagy is the process by which cells degrade faulty or redundant components. It is used by cells when they need to reuse molecules for other uses and also it plays an important role in complementing apoptosis. Both apoptosis and autophagy are connected to cell death but in the case of autophagy cell death is not always the outcome although it can be a substitute when the apoptotic mechanism is crippled. In that case the cell literally eats itself to death.
The image bellow comes from the article. Autophagy has the potential of being useful for cancer supression but also for cancer promotion. The balance is important, too little and you get cell death when the cell cannot produce things it needs by reusing parts of itself. Too much of it and you also get cell death since the cell can eat itself. Altering this balance in a tumour cell could be the source of a new therapy although as usual it is important to remember that cells might evolve mechanisms to avoid the trouble of autophagy, maybe by inactivating the atophagy mechanism all together. Even in that case the tumour cell would be less capable of surviving in situations of stress since it would not be able to recycle material.
Autophagy seems to be a mechanism whose precise role in cancer has not been fully studied yet but could be a promising extra target for a multi target therapy that could hinder cancer evolution and growth.
Autophagy is the process by which cells degrade faulty or redundant components. It is used by cells when they need to reuse molecules for other uses and also it plays an important role in complementing apoptosis. Both apoptosis and autophagy are connected to cell death but in the case of autophagy cell death is not always the outcome although it can be a substitute when the apoptotic mechanism is crippled. In that case the cell literally eats itself to death.
The image bellow comes from the article. Autophagy has the potential of being useful for cancer supression but also for cancer promotion. The balance is important, too little and you get cell death when the cell cannot produce things it needs by reusing parts of itself. Too much of it and you also get cell death since the cell can eat itself. Altering this balance in a tumour cell could be the source of a new therapy although as usual it is important to remember that cells might evolve mechanisms to avoid the trouble of autophagy, maybe by inactivating the atophagy mechanism all together. Even in that case the tumour cell would be less capable of surviving in situations of stress since it would not be able to recycle material.Autophagy seems to be a mechanism whose precise role in cancer has not been fully studied yet but could be a promising extra target for a multi target therapy that could hinder cancer evolution and growth.
Monday, May 07, 2007
Evolution and medicine
Catriona MacCallum, an editor at PLoS Biology has posted the following essay (being PLoS, it is available to everybody) about medicine and evolution.
According to the article, physicians do not get much of a training in evolution as a method to study the origin of diseases. That is because most of the training of physicists is not to make them good scientists but to make them good at treating patients. Quoting the article: "does a mechanic need to understand the origins, history and technological advances that have gone into the modern motor vehicle in order to fix it?".
This approach is not entirely wrong and once can treat things that are the result of an evolutionary process without having to spend too much time studying evolution. A different thing is when the disease is not a result of evolution but they are evolution itself. They never mention cancer in the article but cancer and infectious diseases are clear cases of diseases in which evolution should be dealt with if the disease is to be cured or even contained. Without an understanding of evolution a physician will be unable to understand how the bacteria or cancer cells will react and evolve when a treatment is used or what phenotypical traits are more likely to be evolved and thus cause problems to or be exploited by the medical community.
According to the article, physicians do not get much of a training in evolution as a method to study the origin of diseases. That is because most of the training of physicists is not to make them good scientists but to make them good at treating patients. Quoting the article: "does a mechanic need to understand the origins, history and technological advances that have gone into the modern motor vehicle in order to fix it?".
This approach is not entirely wrong and once can treat things that are the result of an evolutionary process without having to spend too much time studying evolution. A different thing is when the disease is not a result of evolution but they are evolution itself. They never mention cancer in the article but cancer and infectious diseases are clear cases of diseases in which evolution should be dealt with if the disease is to be cured or even contained. Without an understanding of evolution a physician will be unable to understand how the bacteria or cancer cells will react and evolve when a treatment is used or what phenotypical traits are more likely to be evolved and thus cause problems to or be exploited by the medical community.
Friday, May 04, 2007
Cell article on science blogs
Blogs as a way to communicate science. This is quite an unusual topic for Cell that, as opposed to Science and Nature journals, devotes less space to the non-technical side of science. For those of you that are subscribed, the article is here.
According to the article there are approximately 20000 blogs with the label 'science'. That is quite an impressive number since most of my colleagues seem to be doing lots of things but not blogging. It seems that most of these science blogs are actually about pseudo science which would be the number of more conventional science blogs to around 1200 (always according to sources cited in the article). These are generally blogs like mine (of course in many cases better written and updated more often) which deal with fairly specific issues in a specific field of science.
These science blogs can be just about anything. Many do like I do and comment (what we personally find) interesting stuff in our own field of research that we find reading, mostly, papers and journals. Some do also include bits about their own lifes and produce some sort of hybrid between the conventional blog (understood as a personal diary) and the scientific blog. Some take the idea of science blog a step further and every day record their latest results online (although in some fields, like biology, this behaviour seems to be quite rare due to the extreme levels of competition between experimental biologists).
Why would any one start a science blog? On top of the conventional reasons why people start a blog (and weighted down by the fact that most of us do not carry sizable audiences) is the thought that when you write something with the expectation (as unlikely as it might be) that someone will read it that surely helps to clarify that something in your mind.
According to the article there are approximately 20000 blogs with the label 'science'. That is quite an impressive number since most of my colleagues seem to be doing lots of things but not blogging. It seems that most of these science blogs are actually about pseudo science which would be the number of more conventional science blogs to around 1200 (always according to sources cited in the article). These are generally blogs like mine (of course in many cases better written and updated more often) which deal with fairly specific issues in a specific field of science.
These science blogs can be just about anything. Many do like I do and comment (what we personally find) interesting stuff in our own field of research that we find reading, mostly, papers and journals. Some do also include bits about their own lifes and produce some sort of hybrid between the conventional blog (understood as a personal diary) and the scientific blog. Some take the idea of science blog a step further and every day record their latest results online (although in some fields, like biology, this behaviour seems to be quite rare due to the extreme levels of competition between experimental biologists).
Why would any one start a science blog? On top of the conventional reasons why people start a blog (and weighted down by the fact that most of us do not carry sizable audiences) is the thought that when you write something with the expectation (as unlikely as it might be) that someone will read it that surely helps to clarify that something in your mind.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Mini workshop on cancer and cellular automata
Today we are hosting in our group at TU Dresden a mini workshop on cellular automata in biology. Three talks (one in the morning and two in the afternoon) are actually about CAs and cancer. It will be a busy but interesting day.
The booklet for the afternoon part of the workshop (the longest part of it) is here.
The booklet for the afternoon part of the workshop (the longest part of it) is here.
Friday, April 27, 2007
evolution of multicellularity
A friend of mine has found this interesting essay in Nature entitled "Unity from conflict" that deals with the evolutionary mechanisms that allowed the emergence of multicellular organisms.
The problem of how multicellular organisms came about from single cells is quite intriguing. I heard from Lewis Wolpert that this is probably the most important of the seven transitions in evolution as described by Maynard Smith and Szathmáry in their book. In retrospect it is clear that such a transition is possible (since we are here) but, why did it happen?
Paul Rainey (whom I suspect might be a microbiologist) seems to be suggesting that with the right mutation rate (or right mutation bias) multi-cellularity should be possible. Organisms such as myxobacteria seem to be able to alter their mutation rate in response to stress in the environment so I guess that evolution fiddling with the right mutation rate is not unreasonable. In any case I'd rather see it from the point of view of my friend, that is, a harsh environment does enforce cooperation in a way that makes cheating very costly. In reality I would imagine that other factors such as the immune system (that in a way can be though of a police on the lookout for cheaters) or the fact that cells in a multicellular organism share the same DNA could also help explain why there is not that much cheating in our bodies.
This article is quite interesting for any one interested in cancer. At the end of the day a cancer cell is a normal cell that due to genetic or epigenetic reasons stops cooperating. Once they evolve the means to avoid the immune system and other mechanisms designed to maintain homeostasis I would imagine that the life expectancy of a tumour cell should be rather short (necrosis, running behind in the evolution game or due to a poor microenvironment) and thus crime might not pay, at least in the mid/long term (which still would leave room for a benefit in the short term that would be enough to kick-start somatic evolution).
It should be possible using a computational model to demonstrate that an aggressive microenvironment would favour cell cooperation. A mutlicellular organism in which individual cells suffer when exposed to the exterior would evolve a morphology that would minimise the interface with the outside world. it would be also quite likely that a niche of stem cells would evolve to be in charge of generating the cells in this interface that would be in need of constant repair and maintenance. That is what happens in places in which the environment is hostile to cells like the colon or the skin. If cells in the model are allowed to cheat (by means of mutations leading cells to try to avoid being part of the interface if that is their role) that would presumably affect negatively the overall fitness of the organism. However I am not sure that this would rule out other explanations for the evolution of multicellular organisms.
The problem of how multicellular organisms came about from single cells is quite intriguing. I heard from Lewis Wolpert that this is probably the most important of the seven transitions in evolution as described by Maynard Smith and Szathmáry in their book. In retrospect it is clear that such a transition is possible (since we are here) but, why did it happen?
Paul Rainey (whom I suspect might be a microbiologist) seems to be suggesting that with the right mutation rate (or right mutation bias) multi-cellularity should be possible. Organisms such as myxobacteria seem to be able to alter their mutation rate in response to stress in the environment so I guess that evolution fiddling with the right mutation rate is not unreasonable. In any case I'd rather see it from the point of view of my friend, that is, a harsh environment does enforce cooperation in a way that makes cheating very costly. In reality I would imagine that other factors such as the immune system (that in a way can be though of a police on the lookout for cheaters) or the fact that cells in a multicellular organism share the same DNA could also help explain why there is not that much cheating in our bodies.
This article is quite interesting for any one interested in cancer. At the end of the day a cancer cell is a normal cell that due to genetic or epigenetic reasons stops cooperating. Once they evolve the means to avoid the immune system and other mechanisms designed to maintain homeostasis I would imagine that the life expectancy of a tumour cell should be rather short (necrosis, running behind in the evolution game or due to a poor microenvironment) and thus crime might not pay, at least in the mid/long term (which still would leave room for a benefit in the short term that would be enough to kick-start somatic evolution).
It should be possible using a computational model to demonstrate that an aggressive microenvironment would favour cell cooperation. A mutlicellular organism in which individual cells suffer when exposed to the exterior would evolve a morphology that would minimise the interface with the outside world. it would be also quite likely that a niche of stem cells would evolve to be in charge of generating the cells in this interface that would be in need of constant repair and maintenance. That is what happens in places in which the environment is hostile to cells like the colon or the skin. If cells in the model are allowed to cheat (by means of mutations leading cells to try to avoid being part of the interface if that is their role) that would presumably affect negatively the overall fitness of the organism. However I am not sure that this would rule out other explanations for the evolution of multicellular organisms.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Acceptance of evolution around the world
National Geographic has published this chart that depicts the public acceptance of Darwinian evolution in 34 countries around the world. As a Spaniard I am happy to see that evolution is widely accepted in my country, with a higher acceptance rate than even in Germany where I currently live although not as high as in Scandinavian countries or in the UK (the birthplace of Darwin). In the U.S. less than half of the population (if the results of the poll can be extrapolated) have at least some reservations towards evolution although the country (of all those polled) that seems most hostile to it seems to be Turkey.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
The laws of biology
The side effect of having spending so much time traveling these last months is that I have this stack of Nature and Science journals (I switched from the former to the latter a month ago to see the difference) which I am going through quite slowly.
In a Nature from the 7th of February there is an interesting essay about the clash of cultures between biologists and physicists working on biological topics written by a physicist from MIT (good to know where the bias will come from). Physicists have a long tradition of studying an (increasing) range of phenomena and producing theoretical models that characterise as many of those phenomena as possible. These are what are called the laws of physics. The question is if biology can have also models and laws that represent biological phenomena.
Although there are some (fairly generic and neat) biological laws (thing of Darwin's evolution and Mendel's genetics) most biologists seem to be more interested in fact collecting than in putting the available information in the form of theoretical models and universal laws of biology. The physicists (and mathematicians) coming to the field have not much knowledge in how the facts are collected (which it is easy to imagine as the source of many frustrations) but a deep interest in integrating those facts into models (especially when it involves using their favourite tools such as phase transitions, fractal analysis, power laws or networks). It remains to be seen if (in the view of the author) these general laws are possible at all and if (not my view but at least my question) the tools that were useful in physics will be that useful in biology (which does not mean they could at the very least, constitute a good starting point).
In a Nature from the 7th of February there is an interesting essay about the clash of cultures between biologists and physicists working on biological topics written by a physicist from MIT (good to know where the bias will come from). Physicists have a long tradition of studying an (increasing) range of phenomena and producing theoretical models that characterise as many of those phenomena as possible. These are what are called the laws of physics. The question is if biology can have also models and laws that represent biological phenomena.
Although there are some (fairly generic and neat) biological laws (thing of Darwin's evolution and Mendel's genetics) most biologists seem to be more interested in fact collecting than in putting the available information in the form of theoretical models and universal laws of biology. The physicists (and mathematicians) coming to the field have not much knowledge in how the facts are collected (which it is easy to imagine as the source of many frustrations) but a deep interest in integrating those facts into models (especially when it involves using their favourite tools such as phase transitions, fractal analysis, power laws or networks). It remains to be seen if (in the view of the author) these general laws are possible at all and if (not my view but at least my question) the tools that were useful in physics will be that useful in biology (which does not mean they could at the very least, constitute a good starting point).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)