cancer question

[BH]

Hello all,

I have an aunt that made the comment that cancer serves some sort of good purpose in the body and it is only when it goes out of control it becomes bad. I have never heard this before. A quick internet search doesn't bring up anything about cancer being of any good. I can find. Have any of you heard this and is it true. I suspect my aunt heard bunkum but I could be wrong.

 

[Bronzeage]

There stranger things than are dreamt of in your philosophies, Horatio.

I don't know of any circumstance where cancer, in it's many forms, ever did anyone any good.

However, Sickle Cell Anemia and Cystic Fibrosis have long been recognized as hereditary diseases. SCA mainly affects Africans and people of African descent. CF mainly affects people of Northern European descent. It was once thought that advances in genetic knowledge would allow us to eliminate these diseases by identifying the genes which cause the problem. That might mean selective breeding of humans, which is pretty complicated, all on its own.


But, there's a problem. Both are caused by a having two copies of a recessive gene. If a person has one SCA gene, they have a natural resistance to certain blood pathogens which cause Sleeping sickness. This disease is transmitted by mosquitoes and made a large area of Africa uninhabitable to anyone who does not have a natural resistance. If you have two SCA genes, you have Sickle Cell Anemia, which until recently meant an early death. Today therapies exist, but it's a hard life. The CF gene protects a person from Rheumatic Fever, a very severe strep infection which can damage most of the body, if it doesn't kill you. Two CF genes means a person has Cystic Fibrosis, and will probably die before their 18th birthday. As with SCA, progress has been made. A high school friend of mine had CF and lived a fairly normal life. This was in the 70's and he lived to the age of 40, which was remarkable. My son in law had a sister who died of CF at age 16, in 1994.

So, there's our choices. We can eliminate two horrible diseases, but the trade off is two other horrible diseases.

I can't say if there is some genetic puzzle which we'll solve someday and realize cancer is some protective mechanism that has malfunctioned, but it's in the realm of possibility.

 

[rousseau]

It sounds like what she means is that the genes that cause cancer aren't 'bad' genes so to speak, but sometimes their expression goes bad.

When a person is born there is no such thing as a 'cancerous gene', but there are genes that cause cell growth and replication. In a normal, healthy person genes that cause cell growth are controlled and limited. But as the body degrades and DNA mutates, sometimes these genes start replicating out of control.

That's cancer. But the way that people who don't understand the science describe cancer is often very confused.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Hello all,

I have an aunt that made the comment that cancer serves some sort of good purpose in the body and it is only when it goes out of control it becomes bad. I have never heard this before. A quick internet search doesn't bring up anything about cancer being of any good. I can find. Have any of you heard this and is it true. I suspect my aunt heard bunkum but I could be wrong.

This makes no sense.

Cancer is a failure of the systems that are supposed to control cell division.

 

[barbos]

It's conceivable that cancers in general can indirectly and accidentally do something which can be called "good" evolutionary speaking.
In particular cases there is nothing good about it.

 

[Toni]

There stranger things than are dreamt of in your philosophies, Horatio.

I don't know of any circumstance where cancer, in it's many forms, ever did anyone any good.

However, Sickle Cell Anemia and Cystic Fibrosis have long been recognized as hereditary diseases. SCA mainly affects Africans and people of African descent. CF mainly affects people of Northern European descent. It was once thought that advances in genetic knowledge would allow us to eliminate these diseases by identifying the genes which cause the problem. That might mean selective breeding of humans, which is pretty complicated, all on its own.


But, there's a problem. Both are caused by a having two copies of a recessive gene. If a person has one SCA gene, they have a natural resistance to certain blood pathogens which cause Sleeping sickness. This disease is transmitted by mosquitoes and made a large area of Africa uninhabitable to anyone who does not have a natural resistance. If you have two SCA genes, you have Sickle Cell Anemia, which until recently meant an early death. Today therapies exist, but it's a hard life. The CF gene protects a person from Rheumatic Fever, a very severe strep infection which can damage most of the body, if it doesn't kill you. Two CF genes means a person has Cystic Fibrosis, and will probably die before their 18th birthday. As with SCA, progress has been made. A high school friend of mine had CF and lived a fairly normal life. This was in the 70's and he lived to the age of 40, which was remarkable. My son in law had a sister who died of CF at age 16, in 1994.

So, there's our choices. We can eliminate two horrible diseases, but the trade off is two other horrible diseases.

I can't say if there is some genetic puzzle which we'll solve someday and realize cancer is some protective mechanism that has malfunctioned, but it's in the realm of possibility.

Sickle cell anemia protects against malaria, not sleeping sickness. The cystic fibrosis gene may have a role in surviving cholera, not Rheumatic fever. The average life expectancy in the US for a person with CF is 37.5 years. It is predicted that a child born with CF in the 2000's has a life expectancy of about 50 years. Treatment has improved. Lung transplantation may provide an avenue for treatment.

I have not heard of any medical benefits to having any kind of cancer.

 

[Bronzeage]

There stranger things than are dreamt of in your philosophies, Horatio.

I don't know of any circumstance where cancer, in it's many forms, ever did anyone any good.

However, Sickle Cell Anemia and Cystic Fibrosis have long been recognized as hereditary diseases. SCA mainly affects Africans and people of African descent. CF mainly affects people of Northern European descent. It was once thought that advances in genetic knowledge would allow us to eliminate these diseases by identifying the genes which cause the problem. That might mean selective breeding of humans, which is pretty complicated, all on its own.


But, there's a problem. Both are caused by a having two copies of a recessive gene. If a person has one SCA gene, they have a natural resistance to certain blood pathogens which cause Sleeping sickness. This disease is transmitted by mosquitoes and made a large area of Africa uninhabitable to anyone who does not have a natural resistance. If you have two SCA genes, you have Sickle Cell Anemia, which until recently meant an early death. Today therapies exist, but it's a hard life. The CF gene protects a person from Rheumatic Fever, a very severe strep infection which can damage most of the body, if it doesn't kill you. Two CF genes means a person has Cystic Fibrosis, and will probably die before their 18th birthday. As with SCA, progress has been made. A high school friend of mine had CF and lived a fairly normal life. This was in the 70's and he lived to the age of 40, which was remarkable. My son in law had a sister who died of CF at age 16, in 1994.

So, there's our choices. We can eliminate two horrible diseases, but the trade off is two other horrible diseases.

I can't say if there is some genetic puzzle which we'll solve someday and realize cancer is some protective mechanism that has malfunctioned, but it's in the realm of possibility.

Sickle cell anemia protects against malaria, not sleeping sickness. The cystic fibrosis gene may have a role in surviving cholera, not Rheumatic fever. The average life expectancy in the US for a person with CF is 37.5 years. It is predicted that a child born with CF in the 2000's has a life expectancy of about 50 years. Treatment has improved. Lung transplantation may provide an avenue for treatment.

I have not heard of any medical benefits to having any kind of cancer.

I was relying on memory.

 

[Toni]

There stranger things than are dreamt of in your philosophies, Horatio.

I don't know of any circumstance where cancer, in it's many forms, ever did anyone any good.

However, Sickle Cell Anemia and Cystic Fibrosis have long been recognized as hereditary diseases. SCA mainly affects Africans and people of African descent. CF mainly affects people of Northern European descent. It was once thought that advances in genetic knowledge would allow us to eliminate these diseases by identifying the genes which cause the problem. That might mean selective breeding of humans, which is pretty complicated, all on its own.


But, there's a problem. Both are caused by a having two copies of a recessive gene. If a person has one SCA gene, they have a natural resistance to certain blood pathogens which cause Sleeping sickness. This disease is transmitted by mosquitoes and made a large area of Africa uninhabitable to anyone who does not have a natural resistance. If you have two SCA genes, you have Sickle Cell Anemia, which until recently meant an early death. Today therapies exist, but it's a hard life. The CF gene protects a person from Rheumatic Fever, a very severe strep infection which can damage most of the body, if it doesn't kill you. Two CF genes means a person has Cystic Fibrosis, and will probably die before their 18th birthday. As with SCA, progress has been made. A high school friend of mine had CF and lived a fairly normal life. This was in the 70's and he lived to the age of 40, which was remarkable. My son in law had a sister who died of CF at age 16, in 1994.

So, there's our choices. We can eliminate two horrible diseases, but the trade off is two other horrible diseases.

I can't say if there is some genetic puzzle which we'll solve someday and realize cancer is some protective mechanism that has malfunctioned, but it's in the realm of possibility.

Sickle cell anemia protects against malaria, not sleeping sickness. The cystic fibrosis gene may have a role in surviving cholera, not Rheumatic fever. The average life expectancy in the US for a person with CF is 37.5 years. It is predicted that a child born with CF in the 2000's has a life expectancy of about 50 years. Treatment has improved. Lung transplantation may provide an avenue for treatment.

I have not heard of any medical benefits to having any kind of cancer.

I was relying on memory.

I didn't mean to be snotty or snide. This is my wheelhouse....

 

[ronburgundy]

Does your Aunt have any relevant expertise, or perhaps was she speaking from a more ideological point of view.

She may be expressing a form of the naturalistic fallacy, where cancer occurs "naturally" so it must somehow be good but get corrupted by manmade factors. Then there is the similar "theistic fallacy" where since cancer exists, God created it, so it must be somehow good but we corrupted it.

 

[poster]

Hello all,

I have an aunt that made the comment that cancer serves some sort of good purpose in the body and it is only when it goes out of control it becomes bad. I have never heard this before. A quick internet search doesn't bring up anything about cancer being of any good. I can find. Have any of you heard this and is it true. I suspect my aunt heard bunkum but I could be wrong.

This makes no sense.

Cancer is a failure of the systems that are supposed to control cell division.

That control is achieved through containment. Is that correct?

 

[rousseau]

Hello all,

I have an aunt that made the comment that cancer serves some sort of good purpose in the body and it is only when it goes out of control it becomes bad. I have never heard this before. A quick internet search doesn't bring up anything about cancer being of any good. I can find. Have any of you heard this and is it true. I suspect my aunt heard bunkum but I could be wrong.

This makes no sense.

Cancer is a failure of the systems that are supposed to control cell division.

That control is achieved through containment. Is that correct?

Consider a simple case:

- Gene A - Causes cell division
- Gene B - Produces an enzyme that limits gene A

Suddenly gene B mutates in a cell and the enzyme no longer works. Now Gene A is no longer being inhibited and can, in theory, grow out of control.

In reality it's a lot more complex than this but that gives you an idea. Generally speaking 'carcinogens' are things that can mutate DNA which cause specific genes to fail and result in cancer.

 

[poster]

That control is achieved through containment. Is that correct?

Consider a simple case:

- Gene A - Causes cell division
- Gene B - Produces an enzyme that limits gene A

Suddenly gene B mutates in a cell and the enzyme no longer works. Now Gene A is no longer being inhibited and can, in theory, grow out of control.

In reality it's a lot more complex than this but that gives you an idea. Generally speaking 'carcinogens' are things that can mutate DNA which cause specific genes to fail and result in cancer.

Thanks for that.

Why then do the cells end up in different areas of the body? Do they escape or migrate from where they originally reside?

 

[rousseau]

That control is achieved through containment. Is that correct?

Consider a simple case:

- Gene A - Causes cell division
- Gene B - Produces an enzyme that limits gene A

Suddenly gene B mutates in a cell and the enzyme no longer works. Now Gene A is no longer being inhibited and can, in theory, grow out of control.

In reality it's a lot more complex than this but that gives you an idea. Generally speaking 'carcinogens' are things that can mutate DNA which cause specific genes to fail and result in cancer.

Thanks for that.

Why then do the cells end up in different areas of the body? Do they escape or migrate from where they originally reside?

Unfortunately that's beyond my pay-grade. I've never studied cancer in depth, only had a cursory overview. But a quick search of 'malignant cancer' brought up this:

https://www.verywellhealth.com/what-does-malignant-and-benign-mean-514240

Definition of Malignant Tumors: Cancerous

Malignant means that the tumor is made of cancer cells, and it can invade nearby tissues. Some cancer cells can move into the bloodstream or lymph nodes, where they can spread to other tissues within the body—this is called metastasis. Cancer can occur anywhere in the body including the breast, intestines, lungs, reproductive organs, blood, and skin.

I'd assume a cancer cell can live and grow anywhere in the body where it has access to your standard nutrients from the bloodstream.

 

[poster]

Thanks for that.

Why then do the cells end up in different areas of the body? Do they escape or migrate from where they originally reside?

Unfortunately that's beyond my pay-grade. I've never studied cancer in depth, only had a cursory overview. But a quick search of 'malignant cancer' brought up this:

https://www.verywellhealth.com/what-does-malignant-and-benign-mean-514240

Definition of Malignant Tumors: Cancerous

Malignant means that the tumor is made of cancer cells, and it can invade nearby tissues. Some cancer cells can move into the bloodstream or lymph nodes, where they can spread to other tissues within the body—this is called metastasis. Cancer can occur anywhere in the body including the breast, intestines, lungs, reproductive organs, blood, and skin.

I'd assume a cancer cell can live and grow anywhere in the body where it has access to your standard nutrients from the bloodstream.

A friend once told me something to the effect that human tissue is made of cells, and that the containment of the cell makeup, which is defined by genes is exactly as it needs to be for each organ to function correctly - sort of like a bag that is full to it's maximum, if you will. She said that when the integrity of the organ is compromised and the cells have the availabilty to divide (reproduce), they will. The compromising of the containment of the cells is also why they migrate to different parts of the body and "invade" other organs where their function is foreign.

I' could be explaining this all wrong. So, sorry if it doesn't make much sense.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

However, Sickle Cell Anemia and Cystic Fibrosis have long been recognized as hereditary diseases. SCA mainly affects Africans and people of African descent. CF mainly affects people of Northern European descent. It was once thought that advances in genetic knowledge would allow us to eliminate these diseases by identifying the genes which cause the problem. That might mean selective breeding of humans, which is pretty complicated, all on its own.

It doesn't need selective breeding. If both prospective parents are carriers then the best answer is a test tube baby. Fertilize the egg, let it divide a bit and then extract one cell. Test the DNA, if the baby is going to take a double hit you discard the egg and try another. Nobody's kept from having a baby but there will be none of the identified genetic diseases in the next generation.

So, there's our choices. We can eliminate two horrible diseases, but the trade off is two other horrible diseases.

Not really a tradeoff as the alternative diseases can be controlled these days.

Note that there are more disease whose genetics haven't been isolated but appear to be of this sort:

Hemochromatosis: Easily treated these days, deadly if not treated. It provides resistance against many types of infection.

Type II diabetes: In a population in a cold climate and eating a lot of seafood this is actually an advantage.

There are a couple more that are eluding me at present.

I can't say if there is some genetic puzzle which we'll solve someday and realize cancer is some protective mechanism that has malfunctioned, but it's in the realm of possibility.

It's a malfunction of the system that keeps cells from dividing willy-nilly.

 

[Toni]

Unfortunately that's beyond my pay-grade. I've never studied cancer in depth, only had a cursory overview. But a quick search of 'malignant cancer' brought up this:

https://www.verywellhealth.com/what-does-malignant-and-benign-mean-514240

Definition of Malignant Tumors: Cancerous



I'd assume a cancer cell can live and grow anywhere in the body where it has access to your standard nutrients from the bloodstream.

A friend once told me something to the effect that human tissue is made of cells, and that the containment of the cell makeup, which is defined by genes is exactly as it needs to be for each organ to function correctly - sort of like a bag that is full to it's maximum, if you will. She said that when the integrity of the organ is compromised and the cells have the availabilty to divide (reproduce), they will. The compromising of the containment of the cells is also why they migrate to different parts of the body and "invade" other organs where their function is foreign.

I' could be explaining this all wrong. So, sorry if it doesn't make much sense.

http://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/MPH-Modules/PH/PH709_Cancer/PH709_Cancer7.html

In a nutshell:
Cancer cells are normal cells that have gone crazy.

Cells are well organized, and well regulated. Their growth and division is predictable, as is their natural death. Early in embryonic development, differentiation or specialization occurs and cells develop into specialized cells which continue to grown and divide into more of those same specialized cells which form organs, which have many layers of specialized cells that allow the organ (and the organism) to function appropriately. A muscle cell does not decide to become a nerve cell, etc. Normal cells also grow only until they bump up against another cell: they do not invade other cells. Normal cells stay in place: they do not break off and travel and set down roots in other areas. Normal cells/cell lines have a predictable lifespan. They undergo apoptosis, a programmed cell death that is a normal, controlled part of the cell's growth and development.

Cancer cells violate all of those rules.

A cancer cell loses its ability to self regulate. It may develop multiple nuclei and cell bodies within cells become disorganized and poorly functioning. It 'de-differentiates,' losing characteristics of the original cell.
A cancer cell proliferates, or divides and reproduces itself in an unpredictable manner, not following the 'rules' and patterns for its cell type. With each division the disorganization increases as damage to the cells' DNA accumulates.
A cancer cell invades other cells, rather than respecting the boundaries of another cell's membranes which normally signal a normal cell to stop its growth.
A cancer cell migrates or travels to other tissues and other parts of the body. This is called metastasis.
A cancer cell is immortal. It does not undergo apoptosis, programmed cell death. It can be killed but it no longer follows the normal life/death cycle of the original cell.

Different cancers have different features. Some cancers, such as some skin cancers, never or only very rarely metastasize and remain relatively contained.

There are mutations in your body's cells right now. Most of these mutations are eliminated by your body's immune system. Some are not and are harmless. Occasionally, some are not eliminated and are deleterious and become cancer. Many factors influence this, including genetics and where on a strand of DNA a mutation occurs. We all have oncogenes (which can allow a cell to become a tumor), and we all have tumor suppressor genes. A mutation which occurs in such a way to disable a tumor suppressor gene can lead to a cell developing characteristics of a tumor or a cancer cell.

 

[Peez]

Thanks for that.

Why then do the cells end up in different areas of the body? Do they escape or migrate from where they originally reside?

Unfortunately that's beyond my pay-grade. I've never studied cancer in depth, only had a cursory overview. But a quick search of 'malignant cancer' brought up this:

https://www.verywellhealth.com/what-does-malignant-and-benign-mean-514240

Definition of Malignant Tumors: Cancerous

Malignant means that the tumor is made of cancer cells, and it can invade nearby tissues. Some cancer cells can move into the bloodstream or lymph nodes, where they can spread to other tissues within the body—this is called metastasis. Cancer can occur anywhere in the body including the breast, intestines, lungs, reproductive organs, blood, and skin.

I'd assume a cancer cell can live and grow anywhere in the body where it has access to your standard nutrients from the bloodstream.

I am not a cell biologist, nor do I play one on TV, but...

There are at least a few genes that control cell division in various ways.

In the case of "contact inhibition", bumping up against other cells stops further cell division in normal human cells.

It is thought that cancer typically is the result of a series of mutations that produce cells growing out of control.

As these cells grow out of control, they form a tumor. If the cells remain in the tumor and do not spread, it is considered benign (this can still be quite serious, depending on where the tumor is). If cells escape and are carried off by the circulatory and lymphatic systems, it has metastasized and is considered cancer.

...

 

[Peez]

These escaping cells are still trying to grow out of control, and may establish hundreds of tumors all over the body. Perversely, the body will grow new blood vessels to supply the rapidly-growing tumors.

This is difficult to fight, because the cancer cells are not invading cells: they are your cells that have gone out of control. Your immune system does have mechanisms for identifying and destroying cancerous and precancerous cells, but (obviously) it does not always work. Typical treatments target any cell that is dividing quickly, this certainly harms cancer cells but also many other cells in your body that are dividing quickly.



Cancer is essentially a failure of control mechanisms that exist to allow your cells to cooperate. It is hard to imagine how cancer could ever be advantageous, but certainly the control mechanisms are beneficial. I suppose it could be argued that there are advantages to having control mechanisms that are not too good (since then it might become more likely that a failure in the system would cause a stop in cell growth during development).

Peez

 

[Gun Nut]

It's conceivable that cancers in general can indirectly and accidentally do something which can be called "good" evolutionary speaking.
In particular cases there is nothing good about it.

If cancer thins the heard of weak genetic pools, then that is "good" for the population... but not so much for the individual.

 

[BH]

Thank you for all the replies.