Cancer adaptations: Atavism, de novo selection, or something in between?

Bioessays 39 (8):1700039 (2017)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

From an evolutionary perspective, both atavism and somatic evolution/convergent evolution theories can account for the consistent occurrence, and astounding attributes of cancers: being able to evolve from a single cell to a complex organized system, and malignant transformations showing significant similarities across organs, individuals, and species. Here, we first provide an overview of these two hypotheses, including the possibility of them not being mutually exclusive, but rather potentially representing the two extremes of a continuum in which the diversity of cancers can emerge. In reviewing the current literature, we also discuss the criteria that should be applied to discriminate between the two competing theories and to determine their relevant contributions to oncogenesis and cancer progression. Finally, we deliberate on the potential applications of this conceptual framework in developing novel treatment strategies.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,897

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Species selection on variability.Elisabeth A. Lloyd & Gould Stephen J. - 1993 - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 90:595-599.
Pruning the tree of life.Karen Neander - 1995 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 46 (1):59-80.
Cancer cells and adaptive explanations.Pierre-Luc Germain - 2012 - Biology and Philosophy 27 (6):785-810.
What is natural selection?Björn Brunnander - 2007 - Biology and Philosophy 22 (2):231-246.
Can Cumulative Selection Explain Adaptation?Bence Nanay - 2005 - Philosophy of Science 72 (5):1099-1112.
Adaptation as process: the future of Darwinism and the legacy of Theodosius Dobzhansky.David J. Depew - 2011 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 42 (1):89-98.
Why specific design is not the mark of the adaptational.Jerome C. Wakefield - 2002 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (4):532-533.

Analytics

Added to PP
2017-11-06

Downloads
20 (#767,676)

6 months
9 (#308,527)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?