This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Oncogenesis page were merged into Carcinogenesis on October 9, 2010. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The contents of the Tumorigenesis page were merged into Carcinogenesis. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Well, it's a good thing that this article is a MCOTW, because it sure needs a lot of work. I'd like to hear people's ideas about how to structure this article, since we don't have a neat template for this sort of topic, like we would for a disease. This is a very rough idea of a structure just off the top of my head. Feel free to tear it apart:
Let me know what you think. Mr.Bip 00:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
P.S. I have to run soon, so I don't have time to pore through this, but here are many many useful images available for free use from the NIH: Visuals Online - National Cancer Institute
Jellytussle's comments about evolution and cancer bring into focus the central importance of microevolution to cancer. Jellytussle also describes some minor aspects of the massive experimental support for microevolution in cancer.
However, I do not understand the introduction of Linus Pauling and the attack on orthomolecular medicine. What has this to do with a new scientific hypothesis about the nature and cause of cancer?
The microevolutionary model is conventional biology. It synthesises the known scientific facts and experimental data into a neat description. For experimental support look to the existing base of conventional scientific data. It is consistent with current and conventional scientific ideas.
I ask anyone with an open mind to read Jfdwolf's comments and come to their own conclusions. I said this has the appearence of censorship in that the deletion of the article is based on openly admitted bias.
Leave microevolution out but the remaining article is now out of date and misleading. Lentof
Um, the theory isn't being opposed based on lack of experimental evidence. The initial posters of this material asserted that it was some newfound theory as though 2005 was some Eureka moment for cancer. On the contrary, we could easily accommodate all this material, provided that these two authors don't get credit for merely being Captains of Obviousness. Jfdwolf removed the text on the basis of the supposed narrow authorship of the theory. Can you clarify that the proposal of the book and the standard accepted clonal evolutionary model of oncology is the same? Then, we can use the material, just not elevate the two authors to fantastic heights. -- Natalinasmpf 18:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The article could do with a few references, although most information is just an amalgam of what can be gleaned from textbooks and other resources. Are there any original/classical references we ought to cite? JFW | T@lk 00:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Needs to be better in general. I have added two core refs for multistage genetic alterations (Knudson, Vogelstein) but I have not put put ref numbers in the text as yet. The knudson sentence needs editing, with respect. Also, probably need a general section on suggested reading. I have added the Tannock and Hill text to general refs. This is an internationally recognised textbook of basic cancer science, and should probably be the gold standard for any cancer biology article in Wikipedia. I'm pretty sure that my formatting needs a bit of kind attention. Jellytussle 00:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello, i added a "citation needed" to the last paragraph on clonal evolution. The change was done on 10:49, 12 April 2009 by 71.74.241.11. A quick search didnt find any article mentioning this, i would be very curious to read it, sounds a little bit weird. Thx. 6.8.2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.240.234.46 ( talk)
The model sounds reasonable, but I am very suspicious of the reference, which contains the word "ascorbate", which sets off my orthomolecular alarm bells. [1] JFW | T@lk 08:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I am a bit suspicious of this too. I have three issues: the use of "alternate theory", as opposed to an alternate standing somewhere in the carcinogenic line in the traditional field of oncology. Two, it's based around one book, released this year, and there might either be OR (just a bit) - or more of NPOV problems, ie. because as a new "alternate theory" one must consider credibility in terms of representation. Thirdly, is it really any different from the currently accepted theory of clonal evolution? Is this any new? -- Natalinasmpf 06:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Checked google - [2] - sounds like a rational treatise, but only gets so many hits. I am suspicious. -- Natalinasmpf 06:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
So simple and so elegant that the only support we have is one book written by two people. The paradigm presently used by cancer scientists is the work of thousands of researchers. And suddenly two people come crashing on the scene and expect their hypothesis to get equal coverage? JFW | T@lk 16:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The consensus is that the material is legitimate but differs from the current paradigm. The problem appears to be the POV of the detractors. The material is a rather bland explanation of the miroevolutionary model and has NPOV except that it differs from previous ideas. Lentof
I am aware of three facts:
Overt predudice has no place in Wikipedia. This has the appearence of censorship. Lentof
Two main points.
I don't get even how this is new. We do have a red link for clonal evolution, the evolutionary theory of cancer which has been accepted at least a decade (but we don't have an article for). This is what confuses me: as some newfound research, it needs to be played down, as part of a neutral point of view policy. I don't think the theory has any "detractors", if any, the theory is not even new. Three things:
(We're leaving out any allegations of fringe science ie. that is found in aetherometry, because I'll assume good faith at the moment).
Which are you arguing for? Alternative theories can be represented, but they must be represented neutrally. If it's just a mainstream development, then it has to be reintegrated and/or the existing article on microevolutionary models can be adapted to other evolutionary models of cancer. This has a very good chance of being reintroduced, as long as no one claims a huge chunk of normally accepted scientific facts (ie. that free radicals and reactive oxidants cause cancer, et al. are all due to two people writing a book, no matter how brilliant.
For example: "Most notably, it allows the various different types of cancer to be viewed, not as separate diseases with different causes and cures, but as the results of a common process, with the obvious advantage that this gives in the search for treatments." - One would think this obvious. Why do the authors think these are new developments? Treating the morphology of cancer cells like microevolution within the human body is not a new theory. Perhaps they developed some of it.
What would be a new development would be applying this theory into practical use - cancer cells compete with each other. If one wants to be Machiavellian and play biological politics with the cells, use them to destroy each other (the enemy of my enemy...) That would be a new development. Wasn't the evolutionary model of cancer proposed decades ago, and has been refined till now? What's new? -- Natalinasmpf -- Natalinasmpf 18:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The microevolutionary model has very little in common with clonal evolution. Surely clonal evolution involves changes in a clone of cells while the new model deals with biodiversity and speciation? The word microevolutionary is used in its wider biological context. I thought the aim was to place cancer where it belongs at the center of biological science.
The microevolution model actually predicts that while antioxidants will help prevent the proliferation that leads to malignant cancer, most antioxidants will be unhelpful with advanced disease. Ever heard of futile redox cycling or the drug metoxefin gadolinium?
Lentof
The microevolutionary model is not a treatment but a model. However, it predicts which treatments are likely to be effective. For example it predicts that there are numerous substances with low toxicity that will selectively kill cancer cells. It predicts that there must be even larger numbers of substances that will inhibit the growth of pre-malignant cells and that these differ from those that destroy malignant cells. This is predicted from the requirements for evolution of multicellular forms. It is an example of one of many predictions not derivable from clonal evolution. A brief search of Pubmed will supply a large (and generally ignored) dataset confirming these predictions.
Consider the biological context. Since the first multicellular organisms evolved they have been in danger from the growth of aberrant cells. So for hundreds of millions of years there has been selection pressure for non toxic substances that will prevent, inhibit or destroy cancer.
An interaction between vitamin K and glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency has little significance for the model or the treatments that are predicted to be effective.
The primary action of antioxidants in preventing development of cancer does not depend on "DNA damage". The first action is prevention of proliferation by cell signalling and inducing a reducing redox state of the cell. Check out redox signalling rather than mutations. Ask yourself how oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes actually work at the biochemical level.
The microevolution model specifies that the defining characteristic separating pre-malignant from malignant cells is gross changes to the genome and specifically aneuploidy. Has anyone ever seen a non aneuploid malignant cancer?
The premise is cancer is fully explained by microevolution. You can apply standard methods of population dynamics, biodiversity studies and evolutionary methods to cancer. An example is when the process of metastases is described in terms of island biogeography and biodiversity; the position, growth rates and late recurrence of secondary growths can be explained. When this is done, the process is seen as basic biology not a confusing branch of medicine.
The word microevolution may be making you think small. Imagine the whole sciences of evolutionary biology and ecology are applied to cancer. The result might be described as microevolution, but it is most definitely not development of a clone of cells with mutation damage to the genes. User - TONS.
TONS wrote, "The microevolution model specifies that the defining characteristic separating pre-malignant from malignant cells is gross changes to the genome and specifically aneuploidy. Has anyone ever seen a non aneuploid malignant cancer?"
TONS wrote,"Consider the biological context. Since the first multicellular organisms evolved they have been in danger from the growth of aberrant cells. So for hundreds of millions of years there has been selection pressure for non toxic substances that will prevent, inhibit or destroy cancer."
"The premise is cancer is fully explained by microevolution. You can apply standard methods of population dynamics, biodiversity studies and evolutionary methods to cancer. An example is when the process of metastases is described in terms of island biogeography and biodiversity; the position, growth rates and late recurrence of secondary growths can be explained. When this is done, the process is seen as basic biology not a confusing branch of medicine."
The entire section is unsourced, thus reverted. -- DocJohnny 16:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
The source was clearly stated. I've added a clarification, but restored the section again. Stealth Munchkin 16:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
A commercial website selling books is not a source. This is a medical article, thus medical journals would be appropriate sources. A non-peer reviewed commercial book by 2 pharmacologists is not an appropriate source for this article. Also, this topic has its own article and the text does not need to be replicated here. -- DocJohnny 16:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
None of the rest of the article is sourced *at all* - there are three references at the bottom, and that's it. The text in this article does not replicate the text in the article on the subject, and is specifically related to the topic. I can certainly see an argument that the section might be shorter, giving a briefer explanation of the model along with a link to the main article, but can't see an argument for deleting the section altogether.
The only argument for its deletion that has been proposed is that the *URL* of the site selling the book *contains the word ascorbate*, and that this makes it the work of "the orthomolecular mafia" (who this strange group are I don't know - do they perhaps have protection rackets where you must pay up or be subjected to a nutrient-poor diet that will lead to your death of scurvy?).
I am rather ignorant of any politicking around this subject, but have to say that this looks absurd - people saying "The model sounds reasonable," but arguing for the deletion of the material based on the supposed membership of the originators of the model in a non-existent group whose views the deleter disagrees with, and all this extrapolated from a *single word in a URL*, rather than even being based on the work itself?
Stealth Munchkin 17:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Stop this revert war immediately. Discuss the changes first. Preferably, this should be done line by line until consensus agrees it is acceptable, especially for a supposedly new theory such as this. -- Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant ( Be eudaimonic!) 19:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
This has been discussed and there has been *no* reason given for the material to be removed. "It's sourced from a book available from a URL with the word 'ascorbate' in it" is not a reason, and the material was taken out by the unilateral decision of one editor. And making a revert and *then* saying 'stop the revert war' is hardly a reasonable action. If you think it needs rewording, reword it, but *nobody* has given a single good reason why this information should not be in the article. Stealth Munchkin 19:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
By "rewording" I would effectively delete entire blocks of sentences that were factually contested or had neutrality problems, because they are contested and someone who knows about this supposedly "new theory" would have to reword it.
Anyhow, the primary concern is whether this is a new theory at all. The book is not a source because it's not a neutral source:
ie. I can't make publish a book, make an article about this theory in the book and then cite the book as a source.
Rather, there should at least be some journal endorsements of this theory as a whole, not just the individual components of it. The url casts doubt on the source,
and yes it is a valid reason if compounded with many other factors, such as the apparent neological assertion of the theory (despite attempts to resolve this by declaring this not as new, which would have allowed material to stay in). --
Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (
Be eudaimonic!) 20:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Again, if Munchkin would take the trouble to look in the section above this one, he/she will see that a number of reasons have been given why this section should be removed entirely from the Carcinogenesis page. It can become a stand alone article or a section of a page on unconventional medical theories. That is not the same as deleting it altogether. Jellytussle 21:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I saw that abstract when I did a search last week. Although it uses the term microevolution, it appeared to me that the word was being used to describe something different from that which is being discussed here. I will pull the article next week, and check to see where it has been cited. Jellytussle 03:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that is the kind of microevolution I am familiar with, not the one purported by the two authors. -- Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant ( Be eudaimonic!) 04:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Have you read the aknowledgements and preface in the book? If so you will know that the book was reviewed before publication and has a wikistyle continuing peer review process. Get real. TONS.
Once again for your benefit - the book is peer reviewed. it also contains over a thousand references to peer reviewed articles. Also the wikientry is slowly building up a long list of solid references. Your prejudice is showing. If you have an objection -please base it on scientific fact. TONS
I have read the review paper mentioned by DocJohnny previously: Immune Section in Neoplasia: Towards a Microevolutionary Model of Cancer Development Petit SJ, Seymour K et al BJC (2000) 82(12), 1900-1906 This is very much mainstream and has nothing whatsoever to do with the "microevolution" which is being touted on this page. In fact one could argue that the ideas being pushed here constitute misappropriation and misrepresentation of a title and an idea which has been previously published in a peer reviewed journal. That would not be permitted in normal academic circles. Jellytussle 19:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Peer review is a process that ensures quality in scientific articles. For peer review to have meaning we have to be able to trust the "peers" which is generally selected by the journal. In other words, we also have to trust the journal. In a self-published work, this has no meaning. Who selects the "peers" for a peer review? If the author does, that violates the very premise of an unbiased peer review. And clearly the publisher printing agent cannot do so in this case. This is a publisher printing agent who also publishes prints a book that teaches you "God's foods" that cure AIDS, cancer, etc. and books that purport Flaxseed oil cure cancer by hardening on the cell wall of cancer cells and causing cancer starvation. A self-published book just has no credibility.--
DocJohnny 21:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes brilliant confusion and fun to read! Lulu is not the publisher but a printing agent. This level of argument might be considered to lack merit. TONS
The commentary below is quite negative & blunt, no offence is intended and I do genuinely look forward to further research & development in the understanding of nutrition :-)
I've just cut the whole section out, and replaced it with a mention. I've linked the article on the microevolutionary model of carcinogenesis, in which these views can be dealt with in an NPOV manner, apart from the main article; they deserve a mention here, but half the article is far too much for a minority theory. There you go; there's now bags of room in the linked article to expand on this theory. -- Karada 23:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Cancer research has a poor record of success and needs new ideas to make progress. No evidence has been presented here indicating that cancer is any different from the rest of biology. Cancer obviously operates on an evolutionary basis. It would be unique if it did not. But the carcinogenesis page only contains a mention of "clonal evolution" and that is an empty link. THINK!
The microevolutionary model that you are trying to smear with associations of pseudoscience has more scientific support than the subsidiary mechanisms presented here as carcinogenesis. The totality of evidence for the secondary mechanisms for carcinogenesis support the microevolutionary interpretation! YOU JUST DON'T GET IT.
This comments page displays a partiality that prevents objective consideration of the issue. User:TONS.
"Cancer research has a poor record of success and needs new ideas to make progress."
"No evidence has been presented here indicating that cancer is any different from the rest of biology."
"Cancer obviously operates on an evolutionary basis. It would be unique if it did not."
"The microevolutionary model that you are trying to smear with associations of pseudoscience has more scientific support than the subsidiary mechanisms presented here as carcinogenesis."
Regards Jellytussle 01:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The disambiguation page Induction has one meaning "Carcinogenesis" (with link to this article), but the term "Induction" is not found in this article. Can this please be added? Badagnani ( talk) 03:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Propose to merge oncogenesis with this page.
Reasons:
Having 2 articles with nearly identical content is a waste effort and difficult to keep up to date.
Please whoever feels like doing it do it, I am not experienced with merges and do not have admin rights.
Richiez (
talk) 10:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there is any scientist who doesn't believe that chemical and physical mutagens and carcinogens are some of the prime driving forces of carcinogenesis (they cause mutations that can give rise to cancer), but there is so little mention of them and how they produce mutation in an article supposedly about the process of carcinogenesis. And what's mentioned, radiation and chemical mutagens, are placed under viral subsection? The shortest possible mention of chemical mutagens/carcinogens and radiation, instead we have a long passage on atavism. Then the only place where reactive oxygen species being mentioned as a cause of carcinogenesis is in the non-mainstream theories section. I don't think there is any scientist who doesn't believe that reactive oxygen species can be a cause of cancer. Are there any scientist contributing to this article? Hzh ( talk) 13:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
inflammation seems to play an important role in the process of cancer development. See for example the following article:
"Recent data have expanded the concept that inflammation is a critical component of tumour progression. Many cancers arise from sites of infection, chronic irritation and inflammation. It is now becoming clear that the tumour microenvironment, which is largely orchestrated by inflammatory cells, is an indispensable participant in the neoplastic process, fostering proliferation, survival and migration. In addition, tumour cells have co-opted some of the signalling molecules of the innate immune system, such as selectins, chemokines and their receptors for invasion, migration and metastasis. These insights are fostering new anti-inflammatory therapeutic approaches to cancer development." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12490959
Or this article: "A new study shows how inflammation can help cause cancer. Chronic inflammation due to infection or to conditions such as chronic inflammatory bowel disease is associated with up to 25 percent of all cancers." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110419091159.htm and http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1101795108 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.199.39.228 ( talk) 17:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
you can google to find more papers with reliable sources: http://scholar.google.de/scholar?q=Inflammation+and+cancer
i think these informations should be included into the article. i have not the knowledge in this area to do it. can anybody help?
79.199.39.228 ( talk) 17:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm moving the content of this edit to the talk page, per WP:UNDUE (I think), as a search term, " blebbishield" currently gets just 8 hits on Google Scholar.
Cellular transformation is essentially sphere formation of cancer cells. clarification needed Recent findings demonstrates that cancer stem cells can form spheres (transformation) after undergoing morphological and biochemical apoptosis by evoking blebbishield emergency program. [1]
109.158.8.201 ( talk) 22:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Carcinogenesis/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
The article is lacking inline references. - tameeria 23:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 23:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 10:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Oncogenesis page were merged into Carcinogenesis on October 9, 2010. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The contents of the Tumorigenesis page were merged into Carcinogenesis. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Well, it's a good thing that this article is a MCOTW, because it sure needs a lot of work. I'd like to hear people's ideas about how to structure this article, since we don't have a neat template for this sort of topic, like we would for a disease. This is a very rough idea of a structure just off the top of my head. Feel free to tear it apart:
Let me know what you think. Mr.Bip 00:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
P.S. I have to run soon, so I don't have time to pore through this, but here are many many useful images available for free use from the NIH: Visuals Online - National Cancer Institute
Jellytussle's comments about evolution and cancer bring into focus the central importance of microevolution to cancer. Jellytussle also describes some minor aspects of the massive experimental support for microevolution in cancer.
However, I do not understand the introduction of Linus Pauling and the attack on orthomolecular medicine. What has this to do with a new scientific hypothesis about the nature and cause of cancer?
The microevolutionary model is conventional biology. It synthesises the known scientific facts and experimental data into a neat description. For experimental support look to the existing base of conventional scientific data. It is consistent with current and conventional scientific ideas.
I ask anyone with an open mind to read Jfdwolf's comments and come to their own conclusions. I said this has the appearence of censorship in that the deletion of the article is based on openly admitted bias.
Leave microevolution out but the remaining article is now out of date and misleading. Lentof
Um, the theory isn't being opposed based on lack of experimental evidence. The initial posters of this material asserted that it was some newfound theory as though 2005 was some Eureka moment for cancer. On the contrary, we could easily accommodate all this material, provided that these two authors don't get credit for merely being Captains of Obviousness. Jfdwolf removed the text on the basis of the supposed narrow authorship of the theory. Can you clarify that the proposal of the book and the standard accepted clonal evolutionary model of oncology is the same? Then, we can use the material, just not elevate the two authors to fantastic heights. -- Natalinasmpf 18:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The article could do with a few references, although most information is just an amalgam of what can be gleaned from textbooks and other resources. Are there any original/classical references we ought to cite? JFW | T@lk 00:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Needs to be better in general. I have added two core refs for multistage genetic alterations (Knudson, Vogelstein) but I have not put put ref numbers in the text as yet. The knudson sentence needs editing, with respect. Also, probably need a general section on suggested reading. I have added the Tannock and Hill text to general refs. This is an internationally recognised textbook of basic cancer science, and should probably be the gold standard for any cancer biology article in Wikipedia. I'm pretty sure that my formatting needs a bit of kind attention. Jellytussle 00:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello, i added a "citation needed" to the last paragraph on clonal evolution. The change was done on 10:49, 12 April 2009 by 71.74.241.11. A quick search didnt find any article mentioning this, i would be very curious to read it, sounds a little bit weird. Thx. 6.8.2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.240.234.46 ( talk)
The model sounds reasonable, but I am very suspicious of the reference, which contains the word "ascorbate", which sets off my orthomolecular alarm bells. [1] JFW | T@lk 08:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I am a bit suspicious of this too. I have three issues: the use of "alternate theory", as opposed to an alternate standing somewhere in the carcinogenic line in the traditional field of oncology. Two, it's based around one book, released this year, and there might either be OR (just a bit) - or more of NPOV problems, ie. because as a new "alternate theory" one must consider credibility in terms of representation. Thirdly, is it really any different from the currently accepted theory of clonal evolution? Is this any new? -- Natalinasmpf 06:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Checked google - [2] - sounds like a rational treatise, but only gets so many hits. I am suspicious. -- Natalinasmpf 06:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
So simple and so elegant that the only support we have is one book written by two people. The paradigm presently used by cancer scientists is the work of thousands of researchers. And suddenly two people come crashing on the scene and expect their hypothesis to get equal coverage? JFW | T@lk 16:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The consensus is that the material is legitimate but differs from the current paradigm. The problem appears to be the POV of the detractors. The material is a rather bland explanation of the miroevolutionary model and has NPOV except that it differs from previous ideas. Lentof
I am aware of three facts:
Overt predudice has no place in Wikipedia. This has the appearence of censorship. Lentof
Two main points.
I don't get even how this is new. We do have a red link for clonal evolution, the evolutionary theory of cancer which has been accepted at least a decade (but we don't have an article for). This is what confuses me: as some newfound research, it needs to be played down, as part of a neutral point of view policy. I don't think the theory has any "detractors", if any, the theory is not even new. Three things:
(We're leaving out any allegations of fringe science ie. that is found in aetherometry, because I'll assume good faith at the moment).
Which are you arguing for? Alternative theories can be represented, but they must be represented neutrally. If it's just a mainstream development, then it has to be reintegrated and/or the existing article on microevolutionary models can be adapted to other evolutionary models of cancer. This has a very good chance of being reintroduced, as long as no one claims a huge chunk of normally accepted scientific facts (ie. that free radicals and reactive oxidants cause cancer, et al. are all due to two people writing a book, no matter how brilliant.
For example: "Most notably, it allows the various different types of cancer to be viewed, not as separate diseases with different causes and cures, but as the results of a common process, with the obvious advantage that this gives in the search for treatments." - One would think this obvious. Why do the authors think these are new developments? Treating the morphology of cancer cells like microevolution within the human body is not a new theory. Perhaps they developed some of it.
What would be a new development would be applying this theory into practical use - cancer cells compete with each other. If one wants to be Machiavellian and play biological politics with the cells, use them to destroy each other (the enemy of my enemy...) That would be a new development. Wasn't the evolutionary model of cancer proposed decades ago, and has been refined till now? What's new? -- Natalinasmpf -- Natalinasmpf 18:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The microevolutionary model has very little in common with clonal evolution. Surely clonal evolution involves changes in a clone of cells while the new model deals with biodiversity and speciation? The word microevolutionary is used in its wider biological context. I thought the aim was to place cancer where it belongs at the center of biological science.
The microevolution model actually predicts that while antioxidants will help prevent the proliferation that leads to malignant cancer, most antioxidants will be unhelpful with advanced disease. Ever heard of futile redox cycling or the drug metoxefin gadolinium?
Lentof
The microevolutionary model is not a treatment but a model. However, it predicts which treatments are likely to be effective. For example it predicts that there are numerous substances with low toxicity that will selectively kill cancer cells. It predicts that there must be even larger numbers of substances that will inhibit the growth of pre-malignant cells and that these differ from those that destroy malignant cells. This is predicted from the requirements for evolution of multicellular forms. It is an example of one of many predictions not derivable from clonal evolution. A brief search of Pubmed will supply a large (and generally ignored) dataset confirming these predictions.
Consider the biological context. Since the first multicellular organisms evolved they have been in danger from the growth of aberrant cells. So for hundreds of millions of years there has been selection pressure for non toxic substances that will prevent, inhibit or destroy cancer.
An interaction between vitamin K and glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency has little significance for the model or the treatments that are predicted to be effective.
The primary action of antioxidants in preventing development of cancer does not depend on "DNA damage". The first action is prevention of proliferation by cell signalling and inducing a reducing redox state of the cell. Check out redox signalling rather than mutations. Ask yourself how oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes actually work at the biochemical level.
The microevolution model specifies that the defining characteristic separating pre-malignant from malignant cells is gross changes to the genome and specifically aneuploidy. Has anyone ever seen a non aneuploid malignant cancer?
The premise is cancer is fully explained by microevolution. You can apply standard methods of population dynamics, biodiversity studies and evolutionary methods to cancer. An example is when the process of metastases is described in terms of island biogeography and biodiversity; the position, growth rates and late recurrence of secondary growths can be explained. When this is done, the process is seen as basic biology not a confusing branch of medicine.
The word microevolution may be making you think small. Imagine the whole sciences of evolutionary biology and ecology are applied to cancer. The result might be described as microevolution, but it is most definitely not development of a clone of cells with mutation damage to the genes. User - TONS.
TONS wrote, "The microevolution model specifies that the defining characteristic separating pre-malignant from malignant cells is gross changes to the genome and specifically aneuploidy. Has anyone ever seen a non aneuploid malignant cancer?"
TONS wrote,"Consider the biological context. Since the first multicellular organisms evolved they have been in danger from the growth of aberrant cells. So for hundreds of millions of years there has been selection pressure for non toxic substances that will prevent, inhibit or destroy cancer."
"The premise is cancer is fully explained by microevolution. You can apply standard methods of population dynamics, biodiversity studies and evolutionary methods to cancer. An example is when the process of metastases is described in terms of island biogeography and biodiversity; the position, growth rates and late recurrence of secondary growths can be explained. When this is done, the process is seen as basic biology not a confusing branch of medicine."
The entire section is unsourced, thus reverted. -- DocJohnny 16:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
The source was clearly stated. I've added a clarification, but restored the section again. Stealth Munchkin 16:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
A commercial website selling books is not a source. This is a medical article, thus medical journals would be appropriate sources. A non-peer reviewed commercial book by 2 pharmacologists is not an appropriate source for this article. Also, this topic has its own article and the text does not need to be replicated here. -- DocJohnny 16:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
None of the rest of the article is sourced *at all* - there are three references at the bottom, and that's it. The text in this article does not replicate the text in the article on the subject, and is specifically related to the topic. I can certainly see an argument that the section might be shorter, giving a briefer explanation of the model along with a link to the main article, but can't see an argument for deleting the section altogether.
The only argument for its deletion that has been proposed is that the *URL* of the site selling the book *contains the word ascorbate*, and that this makes it the work of "the orthomolecular mafia" (who this strange group are I don't know - do they perhaps have protection rackets where you must pay up or be subjected to a nutrient-poor diet that will lead to your death of scurvy?).
I am rather ignorant of any politicking around this subject, but have to say that this looks absurd - people saying "The model sounds reasonable," but arguing for the deletion of the material based on the supposed membership of the originators of the model in a non-existent group whose views the deleter disagrees with, and all this extrapolated from a *single word in a URL*, rather than even being based on the work itself?
Stealth Munchkin 17:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Stop this revert war immediately. Discuss the changes first. Preferably, this should be done line by line until consensus agrees it is acceptable, especially for a supposedly new theory such as this. -- Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant ( Be eudaimonic!) 19:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
This has been discussed and there has been *no* reason given for the material to be removed. "It's sourced from a book available from a URL with the word 'ascorbate' in it" is not a reason, and the material was taken out by the unilateral decision of one editor. And making a revert and *then* saying 'stop the revert war' is hardly a reasonable action. If you think it needs rewording, reword it, but *nobody* has given a single good reason why this information should not be in the article. Stealth Munchkin 19:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
By "rewording" I would effectively delete entire blocks of sentences that were factually contested or had neutrality problems, because they are contested and someone who knows about this supposedly "new theory" would have to reword it.
Anyhow, the primary concern is whether this is a new theory at all. The book is not a source because it's not a neutral source:
ie. I can't make publish a book, make an article about this theory in the book and then cite the book as a source.
Rather, there should at least be some journal endorsements of this theory as a whole, not just the individual components of it. The url casts doubt on the source,
and yes it is a valid reason if compounded with many other factors, such as the apparent neological assertion of the theory (despite attempts to resolve this by declaring this not as new, which would have allowed material to stay in). --
Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (
Be eudaimonic!) 20:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Again, if Munchkin would take the trouble to look in the section above this one, he/she will see that a number of reasons have been given why this section should be removed entirely from the Carcinogenesis page. It can become a stand alone article or a section of a page on unconventional medical theories. That is not the same as deleting it altogether. Jellytussle 21:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I saw that abstract when I did a search last week. Although it uses the term microevolution, it appeared to me that the word was being used to describe something different from that which is being discussed here. I will pull the article next week, and check to see where it has been cited. Jellytussle 03:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that is the kind of microevolution I am familiar with, not the one purported by the two authors. -- Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant ( Be eudaimonic!) 04:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Have you read the aknowledgements and preface in the book? If so you will know that the book was reviewed before publication and has a wikistyle continuing peer review process. Get real. TONS.
Once again for your benefit - the book is peer reviewed. it also contains over a thousand references to peer reviewed articles. Also the wikientry is slowly building up a long list of solid references. Your prejudice is showing. If you have an objection -please base it on scientific fact. TONS
I have read the review paper mentioned by DocJohnny previously: Immune Section in Neoplasia: Towards a Microevolutionary Model of Cancer Development Petit SJ, Seymour K et al BJC (2000) 82(12), 1900-1906 This is very much mainstream and has nothing whatsoever to do with the "microevolution" which is being touted on this page. In fact one could argue that the ideas being pushed here constitute misappropriation and misrepresentation of a title and an idea which has been previously published in a peer reviewed journal. That would not be permitted in normal academic circles. Jellytussle 19:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Peer review is a process that ensures quality in scientific articles. For peer review to have meaning we have to be able to trust the "peers" which is generally selected by the journal. In other words, we also have to trust the journal. In a self-published work, this has no meaning. Who selects the "peers" for a peer review? If the author does, that violates the very premise of an unbiased peer review. And clearly the publisher printing agent cannot do so in this case. This is a publisher printing agent who also publishes prints a book that teaches you "God's foods" that cure AIDS, cancer, etc. and books that purport Flaxseed oil cure cancer by hardening on the cell wall of cancer cells and causing cancer starvation. A self-published book just has no credibility.--
DocJohnny 21:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes brilliant confusion and fun to read! Lulu is not the publisher but a printing agent. This level of argument might be considered to lack merit. TONS
The commentary below is quite negative & blunt, no offence is intended and I do genuinely look forward to further research & development in the understanding of nutrition :-)
I've just cut the whole section out, and replaced it with a mention. I've linked the article on the microevolutionary model of carcinogenesis, in which these views can be dealt with in an NPOV manner, apart from the main article; they deserve a mention here, but half the article is far too much for a minority theory. There you go; there's now bags of room in the linked article to expand on this theory. -- Karada 23:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Cancer research has a poor record of success and needs new ideas to make progress. No evidence has been presented here indicating that cancer is any different from the rest of biology. Cancer obviously operates on an evolutionary basis. It would be unique if it did not. But the carcinogenesis page only contains a mention of "clonal evolution" and that is an empty link. THINK!
The microevolutionary model that you are trying to smear with associations of pseudoscience has more scientific support than the subsidiary mechanisms presented here as carcinogenesis. The totality of evidence for the secondary mechanisms for carcinogenesis support the microevolutionary interpretation! YOU JUST DON'T GET IT.
This comments page displays a partiality that prevents objective consideration of the issue. User:TONS.
"Cancer research has a poor record of success and needs new ideas to make progress."
"No evidence has been presented here indicating that cancer is any different from the rest of biology."
"Cancer obviously operates on an evolutionary basis. It would be unique if it did not."
"The microevolutionary model that you are trying to smear with associations of pseudoscience has more scientific support than the subsidiary mechanisms presented here as carcinogenesis."
Regards Jellytussle 01:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The disambiguation page Induction has one meaning "Carcinogenesis" (with link to this article), but the term "Induction" is not found in this article. Can this please be added? Badagnani ( talk) 03:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Propose to merge oncogenesis with this page.
Reasons:
Having 2 articles with nearly identical content is a waste effort and difficult to keep up to date.
Please whoever feels like doing it do it, I am not experienced with merges and do not have admin rights.
Richiez (
talk) 10:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there is any scientist who doesn't believe that chemical and physical mutagens and carcinogens are some of the prime driving forces of carcinogenesis (they cause mutations that can give rise to cancer), but there is so little mention of them and how they produce mutation in an article supposedly about the process of carcinogenesis. And what's mentioned, radiation and chemical mutagens, are placed under viral subsection? The shortest possible mention of chemical mutagens/carcinogens and radiation, instead we have a long passage on atavism. Then the only place where reactive oxygen species being mentioned as a cause of carcinogenesis is in the non-mainstream theories section. I don't think there is any scientist who doesn't believe that reactive oxygen species can be a cause of cancer. Are there any scientist contributing to this article? Hzh ( talk) 13:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
inflammation seems to play an important role in the process of cancer development. See for example the following article:
"Recent data have expanded the concept that inflammation is a critical component of tumour progression. Many cancers arise from sites of infection, chronic irritation and inflammation. It is now becoming clear that the tumour microenvironment, which is largely orchestrated by inflammatory cells, is an indispensable participant in the neoplastic process, fostering proliferation, survival and migration. In addition, tumour cells have co-opted some of the signalling molecules of the innate immune system, such as selectins, chemokines and their receptors for invasion, migration and metastasis. These insights are fostering new anti-inflammatory therapeutic approaches to cancer development." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12490959
Or this article: "A new study shows how inflammation can help cause cancer. Chronic inflammation due to infection or to conditions such as chronic inflammatory bowel disease is associated with up to 25 percent of all cancers." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110419091159.htm and http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1101795108 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.199.39.228 ( talk) 17:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
you can google to find more papers with reliable sources: http://scholar.google.de/scholar?q=Inflammation+and+cancer
i think these informations should be included into the article. i have not the knowledge in this area to do it. can anybody help?
79.199.39.228 ( talk) 17:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm moving the content of this edit to the talk page, per WP:UNDUE (I think), as a search term, " blebbishield" currently gets just 8 hits on Google Scholar.
Cellular transformation is essentially sphere formation of cancer cells. clarification needed Recent findings demonstrates that cancer stem cells can form spheres (transformation) after undergoing morphological and biochemical apoptosis by evoking blebbishield emergency program. [1]
109.158.8.201 ( talk) 22:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Carcinogenesis/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
The article is lacking inline references. - tameeria 23:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 23:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 10:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)