CREEC

Murviel-lès-Montpellier, France
Murviel-lès-Montpellier, France
SEARCH FILTERS
Time filter
Source Type

Ducasse H.,IRD Montpellier | Ducasse H.,Montpellier University | Ujvari B.,Deakin University | Solary E.,University Paris - Sud | And 13 more authors.
BMC Cancer | Year: 2015

Background: Carcinogenesis affects not only humans but almost all metazoan species. Understanding the rules driving the occurrence of cancers in the wild is currently expected to provide crucial insights into identifying how some species may have evolved efficient cancer resistance mechanisms. Recently the absence of correlation across species between cancer prevalence and body size (coined as Peto's paradox) has attracted a lot of attention. Indeed, the disparity between this null hypothesis, where every cell is assumed to have an identical probability to undergo malignant transformation, and empirical observations is particularly important to understand, due to the fact that it could facilitate the identification of animal species that are more resistant to carcinogenesis than expected. Moreover it would open up ways to identify the selective pressures that may be involved in cancer resistance. However, Peto's paradox relies on several questionable assumptions, complicating the interpretation of the divergence between expected and observed cancer incidences. Discussions: Here we review and challenge the different hypotheses on which this paradox relies on with the aim of identifying how this null hypothesis could be better estimated in order to provide a standard protocol to study the deviation between theoretical/theoretically predicted and observed cancer incidence. We show that due to the disproportion and restricted nature of available data on animal cancers, applying Peto's hypotheses at species level could result in erroneous conclusions, and actually assume the existence of a paradox. Instead of using species level comparisons, we propose an organ level approach to be a more accurate test of Peto's assumptions. Summary: The accuracy of Peto's paradox assumptions are rarely valid and/or quantifiable, suggesting the need to reconsider the use of Peto's paradox as a null hypothesis in identifying the influence of natural selection on cancer resistance mechanisms. © 2015 Ducasse et al.


Thomas F.,IRD Montpellier | Fisher D.,CREEC | Fisher D.,French National Center for Scientific Research | Fisher D.,Montpellier University | And 59 more authors.
Evolutionary Applications | Year: 2013

Since the mid 1970s, cancer has been described as a process of Darwinian evolution, with somatic cellular selection and evolution being the fundamental processes leading to malignancy and its many manifestations (neoangiogenesis, evasion of the immune system, metastasis, and resistance to therapies). Historically, little attention has been placed on applications of evolutionary biology to understanding and controlling neoplastic progression and to prevent therapeutic failures. This is now beginning to change, and there is a growing international interest in the interface between cancer and evolutionary biology. The objective of this introduction is first to describe the basic ideas and concepts linking evolutionary biology to cancer. We then present four major fronts where the evolutionary perspective is most developed, namely laboratory and clinical models, mathematical models, databases, and techniques and assays. Finally, we discuss several of the most promising challenges and future prospects in this interdisciplinary research direction in the war against cancer. © 2012 The Authors. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


PubMed | IRD Montpellier, Deakin University, University Paris - Sud and CREEC
Type: | Journal: BMC cancer | Year: 2015

Carcinogenesis affects not only humans but almost all metazoan species. Understanding the rules driving the occurrence of cancers in the wild is currently expected to provide crucial insights into identifying how some species may have evolved efficient cancer resistance mechanisms. Recently the absence of correlation across species between cancer prevalence and body size (coined as Petos paradox) has attracted a lot of attention. Indeed, the disparity between this null hypothesis, where every cell is assumed to have an identical probability to undergo malignant transformation, and empirical observations is particularly important to understand, due to the fact that it could facilitate the identification of animal species that are more resistant to carcinogenesis than expected. Moreover it would open up ways to identify the selective pressures that may be involved in cancer resistance. However, Petos paradox relies on several questionable assumptions, complicating the interpretation of the divergence between expected and observed cancer incidences.Here we review and challenge the different hypotheses on which this paradox relies on with the aim of identifying how this null hypothesis could be better estimated in order to provide a standard protocol to study the deviation between theoretical/theoretically predicted and observed cancer incidence. We show that due to the disproportion and restricted nature of available data on animal cancers, applying Petos hypotheses at species level could result in erroneous conclusions, and actually assume the existence of a paradox. Instead of using species level comparisons, we propose an organ level approach to be a more accurate test of Petos assumptions.The accuracy of Petos paradox assumptions are rarely valid and/or quantifiable, suggesting the need to reconsider the use of Petos paradox as a null hypothesis in identifying the influence of natural selection on cancer resistance mechanisms.

Loading CREEC collaborators
Loading CREEC collaborators