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).

Gatenby and Smallbone: Glycolysis and tumour invasion. Two papers

Why do cancers have high aerobic glycolysis? R Gatenby, R. Gillies. Nature reviews cancer, Vol. 4, November 2004, pp 891-899.

The role of acidity in solid tumour growth and invasion. K. Smallbone, D. Gavaghan, R. Gatenby and P. Maini. Journal of Theoretical Biology 235 (2005) pp 476-484.

Gatenby and Gillies present a review paper in which they explain that the glycolytic metabolism is a requirement for a tumour to progress into a cancer. Cancer cells tend, at least by the time they become invasive, to have an altered glucose metabolism. This metabolism has drawbacks when compared with the conventional glucose metabolism in at least two senses. First of all the glycolytic metabolism is less efficient since it produces 2 ATP (the cell's energy currency) compared with 38 ATP that result from normal metabolism. Second of all, as a by product of this metabolism lactic acid is produced. Lactic acid increases the pH of the microenvironment of the cell and when it reaches a given threshold results in apoptosis or necrosis. As a consequence of this the switch from conventional to glycolytic metabolism does not happen under normal circumstances but under hypoxia, that is, when there is insufficient access to oxygen. In those circumstances the inefficient glycolytic metabolism, which does not need oxygen, represents a significant advantage. Hypoxia is a normal event in a growing tumour since there will always come a point in which the tumour cells are far from blood vessels carrying the needed oxygen. Periodic moments of hypoxia select for cells with the glycolytic metabolism that have adapted to acid environments by, for instance, resistance to apoptosis or by reducing intracellular acidity by pumping it out. The end result of this selection is that a tumour will have a group of cells that, despite having a less efficient metabolism, are capable of harming other cells and also of degrading the ECM (Extra Cellular Matrix, that hold tissue cells together) so the next thing you know is that your tumour cells are capable of invasion and metastasis.

In the second paper, Smallbone and colleagues introduce a mathematical model to study the possibility that tumour invasion and growth could be the result, not of genetic changes, but of changes in the tumour environment. This is, of course, a mathematical formalisation of the hypothesis presented in the other paper. They decided to take multicellular spheroids and produce an ODE model that describes tumour growth and progression as travelling waves: the one for the increased microenvironmental acidity and the second one with the tumour cells invading normal tissue. This is a clearly a quantitative model that, unfortunately, has not yet been validated by in vitro experiments although it looks to me that its design has been done with care so it would be feasible to do so. The model predicts among other things that avascular tumours will have higher acidity than vascular ones (which makes sense since blood vessels can be used to take part of this acidity out of the microenvironment) and that tumour necrosis could potentially be explained without the need to talk about cell starvation or overcrowding but by the acidification of the environment. They make a good case for antiangiogenic therapies since blood vessels can contribute to a decrease of microenvironment acidity that could be sufficient for tumour cells to survive but not for healthy cells that have a lower threshold of acidity resistance. They also suggest a treatment in which the membrane pumps that transport the acidity from within the cell to the outside environment, would be somehow blocked so glycolytic cells would literally poison themselves to death without changing the microenvironment for the healthy tissue cells.

Anderson et al: Tumor morphology and phenotypic evolution driven by selective pressure from the microenvironment

A. Anderson, A. Weaver, P. Cummings and V. Quaranta. Tumor morphology and phenotypics evolution driven by selective pressure from the microenvironment. Cell 127, 905-915, December 2006.

This is the paper I mentioned in my previous post. It is not that usual to find a mathematical model in a journal like Cell so I hope that this is part of a growing trend.

The paper investigates how the microenvironments helps to drive cancer evolution. To do so they use a hybrid cellular automata model in which cells live in the discrete lattice and the microenvironment (oxygen concentration, extra cellular matrix macromolecule concentration and matrix degrading enzyme) is modeled using continuous variables. The cells are characterised by a number of parameters that determine their behaviour with respect to proliferation, cell-cell adhesion, oxygen consumption, haptotaxis or production of matrix degradation enzymes. Cells follow a life cycle and only proliferate when they reach a certain age. That age depends on the cell's phenotype. During mitosis a cell might alter its phenotype and change the values of proliferation, adhesion, oxygen consumption, etc.

With heterogeneous microenvironment and cell behaviour you get different patterns of tumour growth, some of them favouring agressive invading phenotypes and some of them favouring the coexistance of all sorts of phenotypes. Having the model they described it is possible to study who different microenvironmental factors determine evolution. The results show that harsh environments (little oxygen) select for aggressive phenotypes whereas in milder environments allow for the coexistance of a much bigger range of phenotypes and that these tumours are unlikely to be invasive.

The model is very interesting and the conclusions seem pretty reasonable: Tough microenvironments lead to aggressive tumours. My intuition tells me that on the other hand, heterogeneous populations are more likely to be able to cope with an external aggression which would imply that a less aggressive but more diverse tumour would not respond well to therapies that target any specific kind of behaviour. The main problem with the paper is that the model is fairly complicated for clinical validation.