Bergstein Ivan
Division of Hematology-Oncology, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, New York 10021, USA.
Mol Carcinog. 2003 Jan;36(1):1-5. doi: 10.1002/mc.10092.
It is clear that mutations cause cancer. The implicated mechanism is Darwinism. That is, a stochastic series of mutations is purported to effect the cellular variability upon which natural selection acts to yield increasingly cancer-like intermediates leading ultimately to malignant clones. It is no wonder then that the neoplastic phenotype is considered "alien," having evolved via random unrehearsed events. Neoplasia, however, has also been depicted as something less than foreign, bordering on familiar. This is because cancer shares proliferative and invasive qualities with the native developmental processes of embryogenesis and adult tissue renewal/repair. A question then arises: If key features of malignancy already naturally exist within well-choreographed programs, why reinvent this phenotype via stochastic multistep schemes rather than reactivate it largely en bloc? Indeed, as will be shown, tissues do harbor a malignant potential capable of reactivation. Specifically, this capability is maintained by stem cells (having inherited such from embryonic precursors)-a phenotype controlled by a microenvironment favoring perpetual rearing by (quiescent) stem cells of proliferative progeny for orderly renewal over neoplasia. Accordingly, normally well-sequestered stem cells, when amid carcinogen/mutagen-induced disruption to local surroundings, produce progeny tending by default toward disorderliness (neoplasia) over renewal. Because such tumor-causing mutations act non-cell autonomously, this cancerous state is potentially reversible but subsequent cell-autonomous mutations can impair particular clonal progeny, already cancerous, from regressing. Thus, a scenario wherein mutations (1) de-repress malignancy non-cell autonomously and then (2) slow its reversion cell autonomously, commonly misinterpreted as Darwinian, may constitute a non-Darwinian mechanism for the genesis of cancers that are stem cell derived.
很明显,突变会引发癌症。其中涉及的机制是达尔文主义。也就是说,一系列随机的突变据称会影响细胞变异性,自然选择作用于这种变异性,从而产生越来越像癌症的中间体,最终导致恶性克隆。难怪肿瘤表型被认为是“异类”,它是通过随机的、未经排练的事件进化而来的。然而,肿瘤也被描述为并非完全陌生,与熟悉的事物有些相似。这是因为癌症与胚胎发育和成人组织更新/修复的天然发育过程具有增殖和侵袭特性。于是就产生了一个问题:如果恶性肿瘤的关键特征已经自然存在于精心编排的程序中,为什么要通过随机的多步骤方案来重塑这种表型,而不是在很大程度上整体重新激活它呢?事实上,正如将要展示的,组织确实具有能够被重新激活的恶性潜能。具体而言,这种能力由干细胞维持(干细胞从胚胎前体细胞继承了这种能力)——这种表型由一种微环境控制,该微环境有利于(静止的)干细胞持续培育增殖后代,以实现有序更新而非肿瘤形成。因此,正常情况下被妥善隔离的干细胞,当处于致癌物/诱变剂导致的局部环境破坏中时,其产生的后代默认倾向于无序(肿瘤形成)而非更新。由于这种致癌突变是非细胞自主性作用的,这种癌状态可能是可逆的,但随后的细胞自主性突变会损害已经癌变的特定克隆后代,使其无法逆转。因此,一种情况是,突变(1)非细胞自主性地解除对恶性肿瘤的抑制,然后(2)细胞自主性地减缓其逆转,这种情况通常被误解为达尔文式的,它可能构成一种非达尔文式的机制,用于解释干细胞来源的癌症的发生。