One More Small Step

 

Back in the nineteenth century a chap called Augustus De Morgan came up with a set of laws that, when explained in English, sound like the lyrics of a Flanders & Swann song. Opaque to non-maths nerds they may be but they helped to build the mathematics of logic, so next time you meet AND / OR gates in electronics, spare him a thought.

In fact Augustus is rare — maybe unique — among mathematicians in that he’s not completely forgotten, for it was he who penned the lines:

Big fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite ’em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so, 
ad infinitum.

Given that we now know there’s over 2,500 species of fleas ranging in size from tiny to nearly one centimeter long, it may be literally true. But here, for once, the truth doesn’t matter. It’s a silly rhyme but nonsense verse it is not for it could well serve as a motto for biology because it really captures the essential truth of life: the exquisite choreography of living systems by which incomprehensible numbers of interactions come together to make them work.

Human fleas. Don’t worry: you’ll know if you have them.

Unbidden, De Morgan’s ditty came into my head as I was reading the latest research paper from David Lyden’s group, which he very kindly sent me ahead of publication this week. Avid readers will know the name for we have devoted several episodes (Keeping Cancer Catatonic, Scattering the Bad Seed and Holiday Reading (4) – Can We Make Resistance Futile) to the discoveries of his group in tackling one of the key questions in cancer — namely, how do tumour cells find their targets when they spread around the body? Key because it is this process of ‘metastasis’ that causes most (over 90%) of cancer deaths and if we knew how it worked maybe we could block it.

A succinct summary of those already condensed episodes would be: (1) cells in primary tumours release ‘messengers’ into the circulation that ‘tag’ metastatic sites before any cells actually leave the tumour, (2) the messengers that do the site-tagging are small sacs — mini cells — called exosomes, and (3) they find specific addresses by carrying protein labels (integrins) that home in to different organs — we represented that in the form of a tube train map in Lethal ZIP codes that pulled the whole story together.

The next small step

Now what the folks from Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, Sloan Kettering and a host of other places have done is adapt a flow system to look more closely at exosomes.

Separating small bodies. Particles are injected into a flowing liquid (left) and cross flow at right angles through a membrane (bottom) permits separation on the basis of effective size (called asymmetrical flow field-flow fractionation).

They found that a wide variety of tumour cell types secrete two distinct populations of exosomes — small (60-80 nanometres diameter) and large (90-120 nm). What’s more they found a third type of nanoparticle, smaller than exosomes (less than 50 nm) and without a membrane — so it’s a kind of blob of lipids and proteins (a micelle would be a more scientific term) — that they christened exomeres.

Is it real?

A perpetual problem in biology is reproducibility — that is, whether a new finding can be replicated independently by someone else. Or, put more crudely, do I believe this? This is such an important matter that it’s worth a separate blog but for the moment we’re OK because the results in this paper speak for themselves. First, by using electron microscopy, Lyden et al could actually look at what they’d isolated and indeed discerned three distinct nano-populations — which is how they were able to put the size limits on them.

Electron microscopy of (left) the input mixture (pre-fractionation) and separated fractions: exomere, small exosomes and large exosomes released by tumour cells.. Arrows indicate exomeres (red), small exosomes (blue) and large exosomes (green), from Zhang et al. 2018.

But what’s most exciting in terms of the potential of these results is what’s in the packets. Looking at the fats (lipids), proteins and nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) they contained it’s clear that these are three distinct entities — which makes it very likely they have different effects.

Given their previous finding it must have been a great relief when Lyden & Co identified integrin address proteins in the two exosome sub-populations. But what’s really astonishing is the range of proteins born by these little chaps: something like 400 in exomeres, about 1000 in small exosomes and a similar number in the big ones — and the fact that each contained unique sets of proteins. The new guys — exomeres — carry among other proteins, metabolic enzymes so it’s possible that when they deliver their cargo it might be able to change the metabolic profile of its target. That could be important as we know such changes happen in cancer.

It’s a bewildering picture and working out even the basics of what these little guys do and how it influences cancer is, as we say, challenging. But I think I know a good man for the job!

Augustus De Morgan looking down.

Mathematicians have a bit of a tendency to look down on us experimentalists thrashing around in the undergrowth and I suspect that up in the celestial library, as old Augustus De Morgan thumbed through this latest paper, a slight smile might have come over his face and he could have been heard to murmur: “See, I told you.”

References

Zhang, H. et al. (2018). Identification of distinct nanoparticles and subsets of extracellular vesicles by asymmetric flow field-flow fractionation. Nature Cell Biology 20, 332–343. doi:10.1038/s41556-018-0040-4

Advertisements

You Couldn’t Make It Up … But They Do!!

 

Having just posted a somewhat critical commentary on a recent, much-headlined, study looking at the effect of ‘ultra-processed’ food on cancer risk that was based on what folk said they ate, who should come galloping into the fray this morning but the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

They’ve analysed a National Diet and Nutrition survey and, surprise surprise, found that the adults surveyed (4,500 of them) said they ate 50% fewer calories than they were actually tucking away!

So much for relying on people telling the truth!!

How do they know?

Well, they persuaded 200 punters to drink doubly labelled water as part of their diet (the water is made of chemical variants of hydrogen and oxygen, deuterium and oxygen-18) and pee the truth into a bottle (from the proportions of deuterium and 18O  in urine you can work out calorie consumption).

The upshot of all this is that, whilst a rough average figure for desirable calorie intake is 2,500 for a man and 2,000 for a woman, the 4,500 were eating the equivalent of an extra Big Mac a day, with men consuming 3,119 calories rather than the 2,065 they claimed. Women consumed 2,393 calories instead of 1,570.

Actually, this didn’t come as a great surprise to the ONS guys because they’d spotted that 1 in 3 (34%) of the 4,500 claimed a calorie consumption figure that wouldn’t keep them alive! And, guess what, overweight people and men (of course) are most likely to tell dietary fibs.

Oh dear, I told the French folk in Please … Not Another Helping they shouldn’t believe a word people said. Of course, they will be quick to point out that the ONS is a British outfit reporting on Brits who are notorious cads and bounders. That’s OK then: we can confidently believe what the French tell us about their eating habits — just as we accept that they are the best lovers and have the most sex.

Please … Not Another Helping

 

You may have seen the headlines of the: “Processed food, sugary cereals and sliced bread may contribute to cancer risk” ilk, as this recently published study (February 2018) was extensively covered in the media — the Times of London had a front page spread no less.

So I feel obliged to follow suit — albeit with a heavy heart: it’s one of those depressing exercises in which you’re sure you know the answer before you start.

Who dunnit?

It’s a mainly French study (well, it is about food) led by Thibault Fiolet, Mathilde Touvier and colleagues from the Sorbonne in Paris. It’s what’s called a prospective cohort study, meaning that a group of individuals, who in this case differed in what they ate, were followed over time to see if diet affected their risk of getting cancers and in particular whether it had any impact on breast, prostate or colorectal cancer. They started acquiring participants about 20 years ago and their report in the British Medical Journal summarized how nearly 105 thousand French adults got on consuming 3,300 (!) different food items between them, based on each person keeping 24 hour dietary records designed to record their usual consumption.

Foods were grouped according to degree of processing. The stuff under the spotlight is ‘ultra-processed’ — meaning that it has been chemically tinkered with to get rid of bugs, give it a long shelf-life, make it convenient to use, look good and taste palatable.

What makes a food ‘ultra-processed’ is worked out by something called the NOVA classification. I’ve included their categories at the end.

Relative contribution of each food group to ultra-processed food consumption in diet (from Fiolet et al. 2018).

And the result?

The first thing to be said is that this study is a massive labour of love. You need the huge number of over 100,000 cases even to begin to squeeze out statistically significant effects — so the team has put in a terrific amount of work.

After all the squeezing there emerged a marginal increase in risk of getting cancer in the ultra-processed food eaters and a similar slight increase specifically for breast cancer (the hazard ratios were 1.12 and 1.11 respectively). There was no significant link to prostate and colorectal cancers.

Which may mean something. But it’s hard to get excited, not merely because the effects described are small but more so because such studies are desperately fraught and the upshot familiar.

One problem is that they rely on individuals keeping accurate records. Another problem here is that the classification of ‘ultra-processed’ is somewhat arbitrary — and it’s also very broad — leaving one asking what the underlying cause might be: ‘is it sugar, fat or what?’ Furthermore, although the authors tried manfully to allow for factors like smoking and obesity, it’s impossible to do this with complete certainty. The authors themselves noted that, for example, they couldn’t allow for the effects of oral contraception.

The authors are quite right to point out that it is important to disentangle the facets of food processing that bear on our long-term health and that further studies are needed.

I would only add ‘rather you than me.’

Perforce in these pages we have gone on about diets good and bad so there is no need to regurgitate. Suffice to say that my advice on what to eat is the same as that of any other sane person and summarized in Dennis’s Pet Menace — and it’s not been remotely affected by this new research which, in effect, says ‘junk food is probably bad for you in the long run.’ But let’s leave the last word to Tom Sanders of King’s College London: “What people eat is an expression of their life-style in general, and may not be causatively linked to the risk of cancer.” 

Reference

Fiolet, T. et al. (2018). Consumption of ultra-processed foods and cancer risk: results from NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort. BMJ 2018;360:k322 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k322

NOVA classification:

The ultra-processed food group is defined by opposition to the other NOVA groups: “unprocessed or minimally processed foods” (fresh, dried, ground, chilled, frozen, pasteurised, or fermented staple foods such as fruits, vegetables, pulses, rice, pasta, eggs, meat, fish, or milk), “processed culinary ingredients” (salt, vegetable oils, butter, sugar, and other substances extracted from foods and used in kitchens to transform unprocessed or minimally processed foods into culinary preparations), and “processed foods” (canned vegetables with added salt, sugar coated dried fruits, meat products preserved only by salting, cheeses, freshly made unpackaged breads, and other products manufactured with the addition of salt, sugar, or other substances of the “processed culinary ingredients” group).

Sweet Love …

 

Sweet love, renew thy force; be it not said

Thy edge should blunter be than appetite,

Which but to-day by feeding is allay’d,

To-morrow sharpen’d in his former might:

No prize for knowing I didn’t write those lines — or even that they’re down to The Bard of Avon. What he was on about here is the distinction between genuine (sweet) love and lust (appetite), the problem being that the latter may be assuaged today but will surely return tomorrow. Had we, by some Star Trek-like device, been able to secure his services for this piece, Shakespeare, master of the double-entendre, would quickly have spotted an opportunity in his new role as pop-sci scribe. For sweet read sugar: for appetite addiction.

Gary Taubes considers sugar to be the root of most western illnesses. Photograph: Alamy

The combination can be toxic, as the estimable US journalist Gary Taubes has argued over the last 15 years. His latest book The Case Against Sugar has just come out and I’m keen to give it a plug. In so doing I should point out that we’ve also done our best in these pages to make the same case — particularly in relation to cancer. However, it’s a little while since we wrote specifically on sugar, diet and cancer, mainly because nothing really new has caught my eye. Reading again the most relevant of our blog stories I thought they did a pretty good job (as Shakespeare might have said, being a chap not known for modesty). Three I thought worth looking at again are:

Biting the Bitter Bullet: how obesity and cancer quite often come hand-in-hand and how it is that we’re seduced into eating more and more of something that can help us get fat and ill.

A Small Helping For Australia: makes the point that this is a global problem (even though Australia’s wonderful).

The Best Laid Plans in Mice and Men..: artificial sweeteners aren’t the solution – just another problem.

Actually, there is one recent result we might mention — from Ken Peeters, Johan Thevelein & colleagues at the University of Leuven. Bearing in mind the long-established ‘Warburg effect’ by which cancer cells switch the energy supply system that breaks down glucose from respiration (using oxygen) to fermentation (making lactate), they looked at yeast cells that grow fastest when they ferment — much as cancer cells grow quicker than normal cells. Rather remarkably, they discovered a hitherto unknown way in which fermentation links to a key pathway controlling cell proliferation. That pathway centres around a protein called RAS that we met in Mission Impossible.

This finding does not show that eating lots of sugar gives you cancer but what it does show is a way by which, if yeast cells ‘eat’ more sugar, they grow faster. It seems quite possible that the underlying mechanism might work in human cells (the human version of the protein that links sugar metabolism to RAS, called SOS1, works in yeast) — giving an explanation for the well-known fact that the more sugar you eat the fatter you are likely to become. And what we do know is that obesity does raise cancer risk.

I dare say Gary might reckon this result worth a footnote in the second edition of: The Case Against Sugar by Gary Taubes is published by Portobello Books (£14.99).

Reference

Peeters, K. et al., (2017). Fructose-1,6-bisphosphate couples glycolytic flux to activation of Ras. Nature Communications 8, Article number: 922 doi:10.1038/s41467-017-01019-z.

Desperately SEEKing …

These days few can be unaware that cancers kill one in three of us. That proportion has crept up over time as life expectancy has gone up — cancers are (mainly) diseases of old age. Even so, they plagued the ancients as Egyptian scrolls dating from 1600 BC record and as their mummified bodies bear witness. Understandably, progress in getting to grips with the problem was slow. It took until the nineteenth century before two great French physicians, Laënnec and Récamier, first noted that tumours could spread from their initial site to other locations where they could grow as ‘secondary tumours’. Munich-born Karl Thiersch showed that ‘metastasis’ occurs when cells leave the primary site and spread through the body. That was in 1865 and it gradually led to the realisation that metastasis was a key problem: many tumours could be dealt with by surgery, if carried out before secondary tumours had formed, but once metastasis had taken hold … With this in mind the gifted American surgeon William Halsted applied ever more radical surgery to breast cancers, removing tissues to which these tumors often spread, with the aim of preventing secondary tumour formation.

Early warning systems

Photos of Halsted’s handiwork are too grim to show here but his logic could not be faulted for metastasis remains the cause of over 90% of cancer deaths. Mercifully, rather than removing more and more tissue targets, the emphasis today has shifted to tumour detection. How can they be picked up before they have spread?

To this end several methods have become familiar — X-rays, PET (positron emission tomography, etc) — but, useful though these are in clinical practice, they suffer from being unable to ‘see’ small tumours (less that 1 cm diameter). For early detection something completely different was needed.

The New World

The first full sequence of human DNA (the genome), completed in 2003, opened a new era and, arguably, the burgeoning science of genomics has already made a greater impact on biology than any previous advance.

Tumour detection is a brilliant example for it is now possible to pull tumour cell DNA out of the gemisch that is circulating blood. All you need is a teaspoonful (of blood) and the right bit of kit (silicon chip technology and short bits of artificial DNA as bait) to get your hands on the DNA which can then be sequenced. We described how this ‘liquid biopsy’ can be used to track responses to cancer treatment in a quick and non–invasive way in Seeing the Invisible: A Cancer Early Warning System?

If it’s brilliant why the question mark?

Two problems really: (1) Some cancers have proved difficult to pick up in liquid biopsies and (2) the method didn’t tell you where the tumour was (i.e. in which tissue).

The next step, in 2017, added epigenetics to DNA sequencing. That is, a programme called CancerLocator profiled the chemical tags (methyl groups) attached to DNA in a set of lung, liver and breast tumours. In Cancer GPS? we described this as a big step forward, not least because it detected 80% of early stage cancers.

There’s still a pesky question mark?

Rather than shrugging their shoulders and saying “that’s science for you” Joshua Cohen and colleagues at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore and a host of others rolled their sleeves up and made another step forward in the shape of CancerSEEK, described in the January 18 (2018) issue of Science.

This added two new tweaks: (1) for DNA sequencing they selected a panel of 16 known ‘cancer genes’ and screened just those for specific mutations and (2) they included proteins in their analysis by measuring the circulating levels of 10 established biomarkers. Of these perhaps the most familiar is cancer antigen 125 (CA-125) which has been used as an indicator of ovarian cancer.

Sensitivity of CancerSEEK by tumour type. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals (from Cohen et al., 2018).

The figure shows a detection rate of about 70% for eight cancer types in 1005 patients whose tumours had not spread. CancerSEEK performed best for five types (ovary, liver, stomach, pancreas and esophagus) that are difficult to detect early.

Is there still a question mark?

Of course there is! It’s biology — and cancer biology at that. The sensitivity is quite low for some of the cancers and it remains to be seen how high the false positive rate goes in larger populations than 1005 of this preliminary study.

So let’s leave the last cautious word to my colleague Paul Pharoah: “I do not think that this new test has really moved the field of early detection very far forward … It remains a promising, but yet to be proven technology.”

Reference

D. Cohen et al. (2018). Detection and localization of surgically resectable cancers with a multi-analyte blood test. Science 10.1126/science.aar3247.