Through the Smokescreen

For many years I was lucky enough to teach in a cancer biology course for third year natural science and medical students. Quite a few of those guys would already be eyeing up research careers and, within just a few months, some might be working on the very topics that came up in lectures. Nothing went down better, therefore, than talking about a nifty new method that had given easy-to-grasp results clearly of direct relevance to cancer.

Three cheers then for Mikhail Denissenko and friends who in 1996 published the first absolutely unequivocal evidence that a chemical in cigarette smoke could directly damage a bit of DNA that provides a major protection against cancer. The compound bound directly to several guanines in the DNA sequence that encodes P53 – the protein often called ‘the guardian of the genome’ – causing mutations. A pity poor old Fritz Lickint wasn’t around for a celebratory drink – it was he, back in the 1930s, that first spotted the link between smoking and lung cancer.

This was absolutely brilliant for showing how proteins switched on genes – and how that switch could be perturbed by mutations – because, just a couple of years earlier, Yunje Cho’s group at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York had made crystals of P53 stuck to DNA and used X-rays to reveal the structure. This showed that six sites (amino acids) in the centre of the P53 protein poked like fingers into the groove of double-stranded DNA.

x-ray-picCentral core of P53 (grey ribbon) binding to the groove in double-stranded DNA (blue). The six amino acids (residues) most commonly mutated in p53 are shown in yellow (from Cho et al., 1994).

So that was how P53 ‘talked’ to DNA to control the expression of specific genes. What could be better then, in a talk on how DNA damage can lead to cancer, than the story of a specific chemical doing nasty things to a gene that encodes perhaps the most revered of anti-cancer proteins?

The only thing baffling the students must have been the tobacco companies insisting, as they continued to do for years, that smoking was good for you.

And twenty-something years on …?

Well, it’s taken a couple of revolutions (scientific, of course!) but in that time we’ve advanced to being able to sequence genomes at a fantastic speed for next to nothing in terms of cost. In that period too more and more data have accumulated showing the pervasive influence of the weed. In particular that not only does it cause cancer in tissues directly exposed to cigarette smoke (lung, oesophagus, larynx, mouth and throat) but it also promotes cancers in places that never see inhaled smoke: kidney, bladder, liver, pancreas, stomach, cervix, colon, rectum and white blood cells (acute myeloid leukemia). However, up until now we’ve had very little idea of what, if anything, these effects have in common in terms of molecular damage.

Applying the power of modern sequencing, Ludmil Alexandrov of the Los Alamos National Lab, along with the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute’s Michael Stratton and their colleagues have pieced together whole-genome sequences and exome sequences (those are just the DNA that encode proteins – about 1% of the total) of over 5,000 tumours. These covered 17 smoking-associated forms of cancer and permitted comparison of tobacco smokers with never-smokers.

Let’s hear it for consistent science!

The most obvious question then is do the latest results confirm the efforts of Denissenko & Co., now some 20 years old? The latest work found that smoking could increase the mutation load in the form of multiple, distinct ‘mutational signatures’, each contributing to different extents in different cancers. And indeed in lung and larynx tumours they found the guanine-to-thymine base-pair change that Denissenko et al had observed as the result of a specific chemical attaching to DNA.

For lung cancer they concluded that, all told, about 150 mutations accumulate in a given lung cell as a result of smoking a pack of cigarettes a day for a year.

Turning to tissues that are not directly exposed to smoke, things are a bit less clear. In liver and kidney cancers smokers have a bigger load of mutations than non-smokers (as in the lung). However, and somewhat surprisingly, in other smoking-associated cancer types there were no clear differences. And even odder, there was no difference in the methylation of DNA between smokers and non-smokers – that’s the chemical tags that can be added to DNA to tune the process of transforming the genetic code into proteins. Which was strange because we know that such ‘epigenetic’ changes can occur in response to external factors, e.g., diet.

What’s going on?

Not clear beyond the clear fact that tissues directly exposed to smoke accumulate cancer-driving mutations – and the longer the exposure the bigger the burden. For tissues that don’t see smoke its effect must be indirect. A possible way for this to happen would be for smoke to cause mild inflammation that in turn causes chemical signals to be released into the circulation that in turn affect how efficiently cells repair damage to their DNA.

raleighs_first_pipe_in_england-jpeg

Sir Walt showing off on his return                         to England

Whose fault it is anyway?

So tobacco-promoted cancers still retain some of their molecular mystery as well as presenting an appalling and globally growing problem. These days a popular pastime is to find someone else to blame for anything and everything – and in the case of smoking we all know who the front-runner is. But although Sir Walter Raleigh brought tobacco to Europe (in 1578), it had clearly been in use by American natives long before he turned up and, going in the opposite direction (à la Marco Polo), the Chinese had been at it since at least the early 1500s. To its credit, China had an anti-smoking movement by 1639, during the Ming Dynasty. One of their Emperors decreed that tobacco addicts be executed and the Qing Emperor Kangxi went a step further by beheading anyone who even possessed tobacco.

And paying the price

And paying the price

If you’re thinking maybe we should get a touch more Draconian in our anti-smoking measures, it’s worth pointing out that the Chinese model hasn’t worked out too well so far. China’s currently heading for three million cancer deaths annually. About 400,000 of these are from lung cancer and the smoking trends mean this figure will be 700,000 annual deaths by 2020. The global cancer map is a great way to keep up with the stats of both lung cancer and the rest – though it’s not for those of a nervous disposition!

References

Denissenko, M.F. et al. ( (1996). Preferential Formation of Benzo[a]pyrene Adducts at Lung Cancer Mutational Hotspots in P53.Science 274, 430–432.

Cho, Y. et al. (1994). Crystal Structure of a p53 Tumor Suppressor-DNA Complex: Understanding Tumorigenic Mutations. Science, 265, 346-355.

Alexandrov, L.D. et al. (2016). Mutational signatures associated with tobacco smoking in human cancer. Science 354, 618-622.

Cockles and Mussels, Alive, Alive-O!

And so they are across the globe, not forgetting clams, a term that can cover all bivalve molluscs – a huge number of species (over 15,000), all having a two-part, hinged shell. The body inside doesn’t have a backbone, making it soft and edible on a scale of keeping-you-alive to orgasmic, depending on the consumer – oysters and scallops are part of the family.

Bivalves are particularly common on rocky and sandy coasts where they potter happily along, generally burrowing into sediment although some of them, scallops for instance, can swim. By and large their only problem is that humans like to eat them.

Clamming up

However, it gradually emerged in the 1970s that there was another cloud hovering over some of these gastronomic delights. Their commercial importance had drawn attention to the fact that soft-shell clams living along the east coast of North America, together with mussels on the west coast and cockles in Ireland, were dying in large numbers. The cause was an unusual type of cancer in which leukemia-like cells reproduce until they turn the blood milky and the animals die, in effect, from asphyxiation. In soft-shell clams, also known as sand gapers and steamers, the disease has spread over 1,500 km from Chesapeake Bay to Prince Edward Island.

A 2009 study had shown that as the disease progresses there is a rise in the number of blood cells that have abnormally high amounts of DNA (in clams typically four times the normal number of chromosomes – i.e. they’re tetraploid). In parallel with this change the cells make increasing amounts of an enzyme called reverse transcriptase (RT).

That was pretty surprising as RT does what its name suggests: reverses part of the central dogma of molecular biology (DNA makes RNA makes protein) by using RNA as a template to make DNA. RT is usually carried by viruses whose hereditary material is RNA (rather than DNA – so they’re called retroviruses). As part of their life cycle they turn their genomes into DNA that inserts into the host’s genome – which gets reproduced (as RNA) to make more viruses.

But how did RT get into clams? Enter Michael Metzger and Stephen Goff from Columbia University in New York, together with Carol Reinisch and James Sherry from Environment Canada, who began to unravel the mystery.

Jumping genes

Using high throughput sequencing they showed that clam genomes contain stretches of about 5,000 bases that came about when the RNA of a virus was copied into DNA by RT (reverse transcriptase) and then inserted into the host chromosome. Normal clams have from two to ten copies of this ‘repetitive element’ that Metzger & Co dubbed Steamer. That wasn’t too surprising as we have repetitive DNA too – it makes up about half the human genome. Many of these repeated sequences can move around within the genome – they’re often called ‘jumping genes’ – and it’s easy to see how this can happen when RT uses RNA to make DNA that can then pop into new sites in the genome. And you might guess that this process could damage the host DNA in ways that might lead to disease.

A long jump?

It turned out that the diseased clams had suffered massive amplification of Steamer to the extent that they carry 150 to 300 copies of the sequence. So that’s about 30 times as many Steamer DNAs being scattered across the clam genome – but how could that cause the same disease all the way from New York to Prince Edward Island? The answer came from peering into the DNA sequences of the tumour cells: they were virtually identical to each other – but they were different to those of their hosts! Meaning? The damage that led to leukemia, caused by shoe-horning 100s of extra copies of Steamer into clam genomes, only occurred once. And the staggering implication of that finding is that the cancer spread from a single ‘founder’ clam throughout these marine-dwelling molluscs. The resemblance to the way the cancer spreads in Tasmanian devils is striking.

Fishier and fishier

Fast forward to June 2016 and the latest contribution from the Metzger group reporting four more examples of transmissible cancer in bivalves – in mussels from British Columbia, in golden carpet shell clams from the Spanish coast and two forms in cockles.

Each appears to cause the same type of leukemia previously found in clams. The disease appears to be transmitted ‘horizontally’, i.e. by living cancer cells, descended from a single common ancestor, passing directly from one animal to another. Indeed, if you transplant blood cells from infected animals into normal clams they get leukemia.

 Species hopping

All that is quite amazing but the genetic analysis came up with an even more bizarre finding. In the golden carpet shell clams DNA from cancer cells showed no match with normal DNA from this species. It was clearly derived from a different species, which turned out to be the pullet shell clam – a species that, by and large doesn’t get cancer. So they have presumably come up with a way of resisting a cancer that arose in them, whilst at the same time being able to pass live tumour cells on to another species!!clam-transfer-pic

Cancer cell transmission between different species of shellfish. Cancer cells can arise in one species (pullet shell clams) that do not themselves develop leukemia but are able to pass live cells to another species (golden carpet shell clams) that do get leukemia (Metzger et al. 2016).

We have no idea how the cancer cells survive transfer. It seems most likely that they are taken up through the siphons that molluscs use for feeding, respiration, etc. and then somehow get across the walls of the respiratory/digestive systems. In the first step they would have to survive exposure to sea water which contains a lot more salt than cells are happy in. The ‘isotonic’ saline used in drips to infuse patients contains 0.9% salt whereas seawater, with 3.5%, is ‘hypertonic’ – cells put in a hypertonic solution will shrink as water is drawn out of the cell into the surrounding solution. Presumably the cells shrivel up a bit but some at least take this in their stride and recover to reproduce in their new host. Equally obscure is how a species can protect itself from a cancer that it can pass to another species.

These amazing findings throw a different light on the care-free underwater life depicted in Disney’s The Little Mermaid, in which the popular song ‘Under the Sea’ fails to mention floating cancer.

Can this happen to us?!!

Well, not as far as we know. But the fact that the known number of cancers that can be passed from one animal to another has now risen to nine does make you wonder. However, there’s no evidence that it happens in humans in anything like the normal course of events. There are examples of person-to-person transfer, notably during organ transplantation, and there is one recent case of cancerous cells from a tapeworm colonising a human host. But these are very rare, the latter occurring in a patient with a severely weakened immune system, and there is no example of spread beyond two people.

Phew! What a relief! So now we can concentrate on following developments both in Tasmania and beneath the waves in the hope that, not only can we go on satisfying our lust for clam bakes and chowders, but that these incredible creatures will reveal secrets that will benefit mankind.

References

AboElkhair, M. et al. (2009). Reverse transcriptase activity associated with haemic neoplasia in the soft-shell clam Mya arenaria. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 84, 57-63.

Arriagada, G. et al. (2014). Activation of transcription and retrotransposition of a novel retroelement, Steamer, in neoplastic hemocytes of the mollusk Mya arenaria. PNAS 2014 111 (39) 14175-14180; published ahead of print September 8, 2014, doi:10.1073/pnas.1409945111.

Metzger, M.J. et al. (2015). Horizontal Transmission of Clonal Cancer Cells Causes Leukemia in Soft-Shell Clams. Cell 161, 255–263.

Metzger, M.J. et al. (2016). Widespread transmission of independent cancer lineages within multiple bivalve species. Nature 534, 705–709.

Muehlenbachs, A. et al. (2015). Malignant Transformation of Hymenolepis nana in a Human Host. N Engl J Med 2015; 373:1845-1852.

Another Peek At The Poor Little Devils

A couple of years ago (July 2014) I wrote a piece called Heir of the Dog that featured Tasmanian devils. The size of a small dog, these iconic little chaps are the largest meat-eating marsupials in the world. I’d run into them at The Lone Pine Koala Sanctuary in Brisbane where they’re keeping company with the dozy, furry tree-climbers as part of a programme to save them – the devils, that is – from extinction by cancer.

animal-fact-guide

A Tasmanian devil. Photo: Animal Fact Guide

1024px-sarcophilus_harrisii_taranna

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

imgresTheir problem comes from their inclination to bite one another, thereby directly passing on living cancer cells (causing devil facial tumour disease – DFTD). At that time the only other known example of transmissible cancer was a rare disease in dogs (canine transmissible venereal tumour – CTVT).

Genetic archaeology

DNA sequencing (i.e. whole genome analysis) had shown that the sexually transmitted dog disease probably arose thousands of years ago in a wolf or East Asian breed of dog and that the descendants of those cells are now present in infected dogs around the world.

The same approach applied to the Tasmanian devil showed that the cancer first arose in a female. Cells derived from that original tumour have subsequently spread through the Tasmanian population, the clone evolving (i.e. genetically diverging) over time. In contrast to the canine disease, DFTD is probably not more than 20 years old. Nevertheless, it spread through the wild population to the extent that the species was listed as endangered in 2008 by the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

Which is why a lot of effort is going into saving them, one approach being a number of breeding programmes in mainland Australia, with the aim of transferring uninfected animals to Tasmania.

One good turn …?

We’re all in favour of saving the little fellows, even if you probably wouldn’t want one as a pet. But, smelly and ferocious as he is, the Tasmanian devil is turning out to be remarkable in ways that suggest they might repay our efforts to keep them going. Things have moved apace down under with Greg Woods, Ruth Pye, Elizabeth Murchison, Andrew Storfer and colleagues from the Universities of Tasmania, Cambridge, Southampton and Washington State making some remarkable discoveries.

Infected animals do indeed develop the most unpleasant, large tumours that are virtually 100% fatal – to the extent that DFTD has wiped out 80% of Tasmanian devils in just 20 years. But some animals survive, even though models of the epidemiology say they shouldn’t. Andrew Storfer’s group asked how they pulled off this trick by looking for genetic changes in almost 300 devils. Quite amazingly, they found that even in a period as short as 20 years there were seven different genes that appeared to have changed (i.e. mutated) in response to selection imposed by the disease. Five of these genes encode proteins known to be associated with cancer risk or the immune system in other mammals, including humans. It seems that the mutations help their immune system to adapt so that it can recognize and destroy tumour cells.

In parallel with those studies, Greg Woods and his team now have a vaccine that looks promising early in trials – in other words a way of boosting natural immunity. We are only just beginning to find ways of giving the human immune system a helping hand – hence the burgeoning field of immunotherapy – so anything that works in another animal might give some useful pointers for us.

sick-tasTasmanian devil facial tumour disease.

This has killed 80% of the wild Australian animals in just a few decades.

Photograph: Menna Jones.

As if that wasn’t enough, a second strain of cancer has been found in a small group of male Tasmanian devils. It causes fatal facial tumours that look much the same as the first DFTD. However, it has a completely different genetic cause – so different in fact that it carries a Y chromosome, clear indication that the two forms of the disease arose by quite distinct mechanisms – which makes this marsupial the only species known to be affected by two types of transmissible of cancer.

Milk and human kindness

On top of all that some brave souls at Sydney University, Emma Peel and Menna Jones, decided in that way that scientists do, to collect some milk from the ferocious furries, just to see if it was interesting. Astonishingly the marsupial milk contained small proteins (peptides) that could kill a variety of bugs. They’re called cathelicidins and one of the things they can target is methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus – MRSA – one of the dreaded ‘superbugs’ that are resistant to penicillin and other antibiotics. It’s not clear whether these peptides help to protect the devils from cancer but if that’s how turns out it might be incredibly important for us. As for their antibiotic potential, well, as it’s predicted that by 2050 superbugs will be killing one of us every three seconds you could say that opportunity beckons.

So that’s all incredibly exciting – and not just for the Tassie devils. ­ But another reason for returning to this story is that the devils have recently been joined by another example of extraordinary cancer transmission – and this one comes from the last place on the planet that you’d look for it ….

References

Murchison, E.P. et al. (2012). Genome Sequencing and Analysis of the Tasmanian Devil and Its Transmissible Cancer. Cell 148, 780–791.

Pye, R.J. et al. (2016). A second transmissible cancer in Tasmanian devils. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 113, 374–379.

Epstein, B. et al. (2016). Rapid evolutionary response to a transmissible cancer in Tasmanian devils. Nature Communications 7, Article number: 12684: doi:10.1038/ncomms12684.

Peel, E. et al. (2016). Cathelicidins in the Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii). Scientific Reports 6, Article number: 35019. doi:10.1038/srep35019.

Going With The Flow

The next time you happen to be in Paris and have a spare moment you might wander over to, or even up, the Eiffel Tower. The exercise will do you good, assuming you don’t have a heart attack, and you can extend your knowledge of science by scanning the names of 72 French scientists that you’ll find beneath the square thing that looks like a 1st floor balcony. Chances are you won’t recognize any of them: they really are History Boys – only two were still alive when Gustave Eiffel’s exhibit was opened for the 1889 World’s Fair.

One of the army of unknowns is a certain Michel Eugène Chevreul – and he’s a notable unknown in that he gave us the name of what is today perhaps the most familiar biological chemical – after DNA, of course. Although Chevreul came up with the name (in 1815) it was another Frenchman, François Poulletier de la Salle who, in 1769, first extracted the stuff from gallstones.

A few clues

The ‘stuff’ has turned out to be essential for all animal life. It’s present in most of the foods we eat (apart from fruit and nuts) and it’s so important that we actually make about one gram of it every day to keep up our total of some 35 grams – mostly to be found in cell membranes and particularly in the plasma membrane, the outer envelope that forms the boundary of each cell. The cell membrane protects the cell from the outside world but it also has to allow chemicals to get in and out and to permit receptor proteins to transmit signals across the barrier. For this it needs to be flexible – which why membranes are formed from two layers of lipids back-to-back. The lipid molecules have two bits: a head that likes to be in contact with water (blue blobs in picture) to which is attached two ‘tails’ ­– fatty acid chains (fatty acids are unbranched chains of carbon atoms with a methyl group (CH3–) at one end and a carboxyl group (–COOH) at the other).

Bilayer

Cholesterol_molecule_ball

A lipid bilayer                                          

De la Salle’s substance

 

The lipid ‘tails’ can waggle around, giving the plasma membrane its fluid nature and, to balance this, membranes contain roughly one molecule of ‘stuff’ for every lipid (the yellow strands in the lipid bilayer). As you can see from the model of the substance found by de la Salle, it has four carbon rings with a short, fatty acid-like tail (the red blob is an oxygen atom). This enables it to slot in between the lipid tails, strengthening the plasma membrane by making it a bit more rigid, so it’s harder for small molecules to get across unless there is a specific protein carrier.

Bilayer aThe plasma membrane. A fluid bilayer made of phospholipids and cholesterol permits proteins to diffuse within the membrane and allows flexibility in their 3D structures so that they can transport small molecules and respond to extracellular signals.


De la Salle’s ‘stuff’ has become famous because high levels have been associated with heart disease and much effort has gone into producing and promoting drugs that reduce its level in the blood. This despite the fact that numerous studies have shown that lowering the amount of ‘stuff’ in our blood has little effect on mortality. In fact, if you want to avoid cardiovascular problems it’s clear your best bet is to eat a Mediterranean diet (mostly plant-based foods) that will make no impact on your circulating levels of ‘stuff’.

By now you will have worked out that the name Chevreul came up with all those years ago is cholesterol and it will probably have occurred to you that it’s pretty obvious that our efforts to tinker with it are doomed to failure.

We’ve known for along time that if you eat lots of cholesterol it doesn’t make much difference to how much there is in your bloodstream – mainly because cholesterol in foods is poorly absorbed. What’s more, because it’s so important, any changes we try to make in cholesterol levels are compensated for by alterations the internal production system.

Given how important it is and the fact that we both eat and make cholesterol, it’s not surprising that quite complicated systems have evolved for carting it around the body and delivering it to the right places. These involve what you might think of as molecular container ships: called lipoproteins they are large complexes of lipids (including cholesterol) held together by proteins. The cholesterol they carry comes in two forms: cholesterol itself and cholesterol esters formed by adding a fatty acid chain to one end of the molecule – which makes them less soluble in water.

lipoprotein-structureChol est fig

Lipoprotein                                                               Cholesterol ester

Formed by an enzyme – ACAT –
adding a fatty acid to cholesterol.
Avasimibe blocks this step.

 

So famous has cholesterol become even its taxi service has passed into common language – almost everyone knows that high-density lipoproteins (HDLs) carry so-called ‘good cholesterol’ (back to the liver for catabolism) – low concentrations of these are associated with a higher risk of atherosclerosis. On the other hand, high concentrations of low-density lipoproteins (LDLs) go with increasing severity of cardiovascular disease – so LDLs are ‘bad cholesterol’.

What’s this got to do with cancer?

The evidence that cholesterol levels play a role in cancer is conflicting. A number of studies report an association between raised blood cholesterol level and various types of cancer, whilst others indicate no association or the converse – that low cholesterol levels are linked to cancers. However, the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) that profiles DNA mutations and protein expression reveals that the activity of some genes involved in cholesterol synthesis reflect patient survival for some cancer types: increased cholesterol synthesis correlating with decreased survival. Perhaps that accounts for evidence that the class of cholesterol lowering drugs called statins can have anti-tumour effects.

In a recent development Wei Yang and colleagues from various centres in China have come up with a trick that links cholesterol metabolism to cancer immunotherapy. They used a drug (avasimibe) that blocks the activity of the enzyme that converts cholesterol to cholesterol ester (that’s acetyl-CoA acetyltransferase – ACAT1). The effect of the drug is to raise cholesterol levels in cell membranes, in particular, in killer T cells. As we’ve noted, this will make the membranes a bit more rigid and a side-effect of that is to drive T cell receptors into clusters.

One or two other things happen but the upshot is that the killer T cells interact more effectively with target tumour cells and toxin release by the T cells – and hence tumour cell killing – is more efficient. The anti-cancer immune response has been boosted.

Remarkably, it turned out that when mice were genetically modified so that their T cells lacked ACAT1, a subset of these cells (CD8+) up-regulated their cholesterol synthesis machinery. Whilst this seems a paradoxical response, it’s very handy because it is these CD8+ cells that kill tumour cells. Avasimibe has been shown to be safe for short-term use in humans but the genetic engineering experiments in mice suggest that a similar approach, knocking out ACAT1, could be used in human immunotherapy.

References

Yang, W. et al. (2016). Potentiating the antitumour response of CD8+ T cells by modulating cholesterol metabolism. Nature 531, 651–655.

Dustin, M.L. (2016). Cancer immunotherapy: Killers on sterols. Nature 531, 583–584.

 

Open Wide for Pasty’s Throat

 

Once upon a time (1903 to be exact) a very rich Adelaide family acquired a new member in the form of a little boy whom they christened Norman. Most of the family were doctors and, so well-heeled were they, when young Norm reached the age of 10 they clubbed together and sent him off to the Old Country – and not just to any bit of Merrie England but to Eton (the school, of course, not the rustic parish, generally held to be the most expensive of all – fees currently about £36,000 a year, not counting extras). Norm never returned: South Australia’s loss was Britain’s gain.

We all know what happens to kids that go to Eton – but our Adelaide man was different. For one thing he was very bright and for another he had his family’s love of medicine. He ended up specializing in the thorax – the bit between the neck and the tummy that includes the oesophagus, commonly known as the foodpipe or gullet. Eton probably helped get him started but, even more usefully, some bright spark there gave him the nickname ‘Pasty’ – so great an improvement on Norman that it stuck for life. ‘Pasty’ Barrett ended up as a consultant at St. Thomas’ Hospital where, in 1947, he successfully repaired a ruptured oesophagus – a surgical first for a hitherto fatal condition.

Shortly after that, in 1950, he described finding that sometimes the cells lining the gullet change in appearance, switching from multiple layers of flat cells to a single layer of cells that look like those found in the intestine. We know now that this change is caused by acid from the stomach being squeezed up into the oesophagus. Occasional regurgitation is called heartburn but when it’s persistent it becomes gastric reflux disease – and in about 10% of those cases sustained irritation caused by the stomach juices upsets the cells lining the gullet and they undergo the change to what is now called Barrett’s oesophagus.

Who cares about Barrett’s?

Well, we should all at least take note because a few percent of those with Barrett’s oesophagus will get cancer of the oesophagus, which is now the sixth most common cause of cancer-related death world-wide. Oesophageal cancer has become more common over the last 40 years, men are more prone to it than women and it kills about 15,000 people in the USA each year and nearly 8,000 in the UK. It’s very bad news. Most cases aren’t discovered until the disease has spread and it is then more or less untreatable. The prognosis is dismal: the five-year survival figure is barely 15%. Part of the problem is that the main sign is pain or difficulty in swallowing, often ignored until it is too late.

For many years the only way of finding abnormal tissue was by an endoscopy – a tube with a camera pushed down the throat – both unpleasant and expensive. There has, therefore, been a desperate need for an easy, cheap, non-invasive test to screen for Barrett’s oesophagus.

Professor Rebecca Fitzgerald

     Professor Rebecca             Fitzgerald

Pill on a string

Enter Rebecca Fitzgerald, a member of the Department of Oncology in Cambridge and a consultant at Addenbrooke’s Hospital, with a brilliantly simple development from earlier attempts to screen the lining of the gullet. The patient swallows a kind of tea-bag on a string which is then pulled up from the stomach. The ‘tea-bag’ is actually a capsule about the size of a multi-vitamin pill containing a sort of honeycomb sponge covered with a coating that dissolves in a few minutes when it reaches the stomach. As the sponge comes up it picks up cells from the gullet lining (about half a million of them) that can then be analysed. The whole gizmo’s called a ‘Cytosponge’. It works with no problems and because it collects cells from the length of the gullet it gives a complete picture, rather than the local regions sampled in biopsies.

Pill on a string

                 Pill on a string

Cytosponge (left) and being drawn up the gullet (right)

       Cytosponge (left) and being             drawn up the gullet (right)

 

 

 

 

 

What we’ve learned

The hope was that the cells picked up by Cytosponge could be sequenced – i.e. their DNA code could be obtained – and that this would reveal the stages of oesophageal cancer development and hence whether a given case of Barrett’s would or would not progress to cancer. The phases of Barrett’s oesophagus involve a change in the shape of cells lining the tube (from thin, flat cells called squamous epithelial cells to taller columnar cells resembling those in the intestine). This change is called metaplasia: the abnormal cells may then proliferate (dysplasia). If this stage can be detected it’s possible to remove the abnormal tissue by using endoscopic therapy before the condition progresses to full carcinoma.

Remarkably, whole-genome sequences from Barrett’s and from oesophageal carcinoma showed that multiple mutations (changes in DNA sequence) accumulate even in cells that are over-proliferating but look normal. The picture is similar to the ‘battlefield of hundreds of competing mutant clones’ in normal eyelid skin that we saw in The Blink of an Eye.

As the condition progresses the range of mutations increases: in particular, regions of DNA are duplicated – so that the genes therein are present in abnormal numbers. Typically there were 12,000 mutations per person with Barrett’s oesophagus without cancer and 18,000 mutations within the cancer.

Even from this mayhem there emerged mutation patterns (changes in the letters of the DNA code, e.g., A to a G or C to a T) characteristic of the damage caused to the cells lining the oesophagus by splashing stomach acid. These ‘fingerprints’ were found in both Barrett’s and oesophageal cancer – consistent with them being very early events – parallelling the specific mutations in lung cancer caused by tobacco carcinogens.

But …

The great hope was that the spectrum of mutations would identify precursors to cancer and hence those patients requiring treatment. In fact these horribly heterogeneous tissues – a real genetic gemisch – show surprisingly little mutational overlap between Barrett’s oesophagus and oesophageal cancer.

However, it’s possible to take the cells collected by the Cytosponge and screen them for the presence of specific proteins (using antibodies) and it turns out that one in particular, TFF3 (Trefoil Factor 3), provides a highly accurate diagnosis of Barrett’s oesophagus. In addition, although the genetic changes that occur during the progression from Barrett’s to cancer are complex, mutations in one gene (P53 – the ‘guardian of the genome’) are common in pre-cancerous, high grade dysplasia and thus provide an indicator of risk.

All of which means that we haven’t ‘conquered’ oesophageal cancer – but thanks to these remarkable advances we have a much better understanding of its molecular basis. Even more importantly, it’s possible to detect the early stages – and do something about it.

AND … whilst making a major contribution to all this, Rebecca Fitzgerald very kindly found time to make suggestions and provide additional information for this piece.

References

Ross-Innes, C.S., Fitzgerald, R.C. et al. (2015). Nature Genetics 47, 1038-1046.

 

Dennis’s Pet Menace

As it happened, I’d already agreed to appear on Jeremy Sallis’ Lunchtime Live Show on BBC Radio Cambridgeshire – the plan being just to chat about cancery topics that might be of interest to listeners. Which would have been fine – if only The World Health Organization had left us in peace. But of course they chose last Tuesday to publish their lengthy cogitations on the subject of whether meat is bad for us – i.e. causes cancer.

Cue Press extremism: prime example The Times, quite predictably – they really aren’t great on biomedical science – who chucked kerosene on the barbie with the headline ‘Processed meats blamed for thousands of cancer deaths a year’.

But – to precise facts – and strictly it’s The International Agency for Research on Cancer, the cancer agency of the World Health Organization (WHO), that has ‘evaluated the carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat and processed meat.’

But hang on … haven’t we been here before?

Indeed we have. As long ago as January 2012 in these pages we commented on the evidence that processed meat can cause pancreatic cancer and in May of the same year we reviewed the cogitations of the Harvard School of Public Health’s 28 year study of 120,000 people that concluded eating red meat contributes to cardiovascular disease, cancer and diabetes. To be fair, that history partially reflects why the WHO Working Group of 22 experts from 10 countries have taken so long to go public: they reviewed no fewer than 800 epidemiological studies! However, as the most frequent target for study was colorectal (bowel) cancer, that was the focus of their report released on 26th October 2015.

So what are we talking about?

Red meat, which means any unprocessed mammalian muscle meat, e.g., beef, veal, pork, lamb, mutton, horse or goat meat, that we usually cook before eating.

Processed meat: any meat not eaten fresh that has been salted, cured, smoked or whatever and commonly treated with chemicals to enhance flavour and colour and to prevent the growth of bacteria.

What did they say?

Processed meat is now classified as carcinogenic to humans – that is it goes into the top group (Group 1) of agents that cause cancer.

Red meat is probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A). Group 2B is for things that are possibly carcinogenic to humans.

Why?

Because 12 of the 18 studies they reviewed showed a link between consumption of processed meat and bowel cancer and because it’s known that agents commonly added to processed meat (nitrates and nitrites) can, when we eat them, turn into chemicals that can directly damage DNA, i.e. cause mutations and hence promote cancers.

For red meat 7 out of 15 studies showed positive associations of high versus low consumption with bowel cancer and there is strong mechanistic evidence for a carcinogenic effect i.e. when meat is cooked genotoxic (i.e. DNA-damaging) chemicals can be generated. They put red meat in the probably group because several of the studies that the Working Group couldn’t fault – and therefore couldn’t leave out – showed no association.

Stop woffling

My laptop likes to turn ‘woffling’ into ‘wolfing’. Maybe it’s trying to tell me something.

But is The WHO trying to tell us something specific about wolfing? To be fair, they have a go by estimating that every 50 gram portion of processed meat (say a couple of slices of bacon) eaten daily increases the risk of bowel cancer by about 18%. For red meat the data ‘suggest’ that the risk of bowel cancer could increase by 17% for every 100 gram portion eaten daily.

And what might that mean?

In the UK about 6 people in 100 get bowel cancer: if you take The WHO maximum estimate and have everyone eat 50 grams of processed meat every day of their lives such that 18% more of them would get bowel cancer, the upshot would be 7 people in 100 rather than 6. So it’s a small rise in a relatively small risk.

As the report points out, the Global Burden of Disease Project reckons diets high in processed meat cause about 34,000 cancer deaths per year worldwide and, if the reported associations hold up, the figure for red meat would be 50,000. Compare those figures with smoking that increases the risk of lung cancer by 20-fold and The WHO’s estimate of up to 6 million cancer deaths per year globally caused by tobacco use and 600,000 per year by alcohol consumption.

All of which suggests that it isn’t very helpful to lump meat eating, tobacco and asbestos in the same cancer-causing category and that The WHO could do worse than come up with a new classification system.

And the message?

Unchanged. Remember mankind evolved into the most successful species on the planet as a meat eater. As the advert used to say: It looks good, it tastes good and by golly it does you good – not least as a source of protein, vitamins and other nutrients. Do some exercise and eat a balanced diet – just in case you’ve forgotten, that means limit the amount of red meat (The WHO suggests no more than 30 grams a day for men, 25 g for women) so try fish, poultry, etc. Stick with the ‘good carbs’ (vegetables, fruits, whole grains, etc.), cut out the ‘bad’ (sugar – see Biting the Bitter Bullet), eat fishy fats not saturated fats and, to end on a technical note, don’t pig out.

_65259128_6136791400_49fc5aaece_b

‘The Divine Swine’ Castelnuovo Rangone, Italy

Meanwhile back on the Beeb

When the meat story broke I was a bit concerned that we might end up spending the whole of Lunchtime Live on how many bangers are lethal – especially as we were taking calls from listeners. Just in case things became a bit myopic I had Rasher up my sleeve. Rasher, you may recall, was Dennis the Menace‘s pet pig (in the The Beano‘s comic strip) who had a brother (Hamlet), a sister (Virginia Ham) and various other porky rellos. To bring it up to date we’d have introduced Sam Salami and Frank Furter and, of course, Rasher’s grandfather who was the model for the bronze statue named ‘The Divine Swine’ to be found in the little town of Castelnuovo Rangone in Pig Valley, Italy, the home of Parma ham.

But I shouldn’t have worried. All was well in the hands of Jeremy Sallis who, being a brilliant host, ensured that we mainly chatted about meatier matters than what to have for breakfast.

References

Press release: IARC Monographs evaluate consumption of red meat and processed meat.

Q&A on the carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat and processed meat.

Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat. www.thelancet.com/oncology Published online October 26, 2015

Cancer Genetics: Never Black or White

The National Heath Service occupies a uniquely revered place in the psyche of the British people – as indeed it should, the concept of free, first rate health care available when required being one of the hallmarks of civilization. Founded in 1948, the NHS has continued to this day to fulfill its remit with astonishing efficiency in the face of demands beyond comprehension sixty years ago, as both the size of the population and life expectancy have increased and medical practice has been transformed by technical advances. Even so, there is one area in which there is a surprising shortfall in the performance of the NHS when compared with most other European countries or with the USA – cancer survival rates.

We’re behind you!!

Broadly speaking, the latest findings of a massive study (called CONCORD-2, a long-term global comparison of cancer survival) show 5-year cancer survival rates in the UK for 2005 to 2009 to have been worse than they were in many European countries at least a decade earlier. “Shameful” cried Macmillan Cancer Support – rarely a helpful response but you have to concede it’s scarcely grounds for an outbreak of British smugness. More to the point, Cancer Research UK insisted the gulf was often linked to deprivation, i.e. patients in poorer areas tend to live unhealthy lifestyles so they are more susceptible and likely to be diagnosed later. This refers to what has become known as the postcode (zipcode) lottery whereby the chances of being diagnosed early and surviving various forms of cancer differ significantly (meaning as much as two-fold!) across the UK. Further contributions come from general practitioners missing the early signs of cancer, adding to the delay in referral, together with variable standards of treatment.

And the answer is?

But hang on! None of this actually explains why these problems should be more acute in the UK than in, say, France or Finland who presumably have their share of the poor and incompetent. So what might be different in the UK? Here’s my theory. Maybe it’s just us, the Jane & John Does lining up to become cancer patients. Dentists reckon they can pick Brits from Yanks just by peering into their oral cavities (Brits have cavities {ho ho} whereas Americans are perfect – tooth-wise that is). Why? Because we don’t care: we figure our bodies are non-maintenance machines – so we never dream of getting them serviced, that is, having regular check-ups – and when they do conk out we expect the wondrous NHS to fix it. To see if there’s any truth in this theory I conducted a meaningless, random poll in my department (featuring two Americans, one Finn, a Dutchman, two German ladies and a French girl – all from nations that do better than the UK) asking ‘how health aware are your countrymen compared with the British?’ Result? They’re all hypochondriacs compared to Brits whose default method is to avoid doctors until they’re at death’s door. So there we have it: it’s our fault and if we just looked after ourselves a bit better the UK would scrabble its way up the cancer survival league.

Sounds familiar?

Take the specific example of breast cancer. 81% of UK women diagnosed between 2005 and 2009 were alive five years later but in Sweden, France and Italy the rates range from 86 to 87%. This kind of gap is reminiscent of that in the USA between African American women and those of European descent – presently 79% versus 92 % – a disparity that has remained pretty constant over the last 40 years even though the survival rates of both groups have steadily risen (the overall USA survival rate for breast cancer is now 89%). Again the divide has been attributed to poverty and education level, together with lack of health insurance, so that detection is delayed and survival times shortened.

So it’s clear that multiple factors contribute to the variable treatment success rates but so far there’s no evidence that genetic differences play a part, for example, by giving rise to more aggressive forms of cancer.

A little more light in one corner

Breast cancers are an enormously varied set of diseases and as such they’re a challenge even to classify yet alone to treat. The recent rapid progress in DNA sequencing has led to a new genome-based classification system but there is still strong reliance on the traditional prognostic and predictive factors, notably what’s called hormonal status – meaning presence on the surface of the tumour cells of the protein receptors to which the hormones oestrogen and progesterone attach, together with the presence or otherwise of the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). One significant sub-group has no detectable levels of these proteins – they’re ‘triple negative’ – and they make up 10-15% of breast cancers (TNBCs). TNBCs are very aggressive cancers (poor prognosis), known for some years to disproportionally affect young women of African origin – it’s about twice as common in African Americans as in European Americans.

Untitled

The triple negative breast cancer survival rate dependence on race.

African-American women with TNBC have poorer survival rates than women of European descent (Dietze et al., 2015).

Step forward DNA sequencing – again!

What wasn’t known was anything by way of explanation of these epidemiological findings but from sequencing tumour DNA it has emerged that mutations in BRCA1 are present in most (69%) of TNBCs in women of European origin. Inherited mutations in BRCA1 are particularly associated with breast and ovarian cancers, as we explained in a recent item on Angelina Jolie (A Taxing Inheritance). But here’s a very odd thing: African-American women have a low incidence of BRCA1 mutations (less than 20%), despite the fact that they are relatively prone to TNBC.

What’s new?

Well, if BRCA1 isn’t doing the driving there must be other potent drivers for TNBC and the new genetic studies have given us one more piece in the molecular jigsaw of cancer. However, to take up Frances M. Visco’s point in a recent letter to The New York Times and one that I have made forcefully elsewhere (in Not another ‘Great Cancer Breakthrough’!!! and Gentlemen! For goodness’ sake …), this is not another ‘breakthrough’ yet alone a ‘great one.’ It won’t save lives until we identify what the other drivers are and come up with a therapeutic ploy to exploit our knowledge.

Right on cue, step forward Alex Swarbrick, Simon Junankar and colleagues from Sydney’s Garvan Institute of Medical Research who have just found that a protein called ID4 appears to control some TNBCs: it’s present at high levels in about half of all TNBCs. ID4 stands for ‘inhibitor of differentiation 4′ which means that it keeps cells in a state where they can continue to divide – a hallmark of cancer.

So now it’s over to the lads from down under to do the difficult bit and come up with an inhibitor of ID4 – and to show that it works to stop TNBCs in their tracks.

References

Allemani, C. et al., (2015). Global surveillance of cancer survival 1995-2009: analysis of individual data for 25 676 887 patients from 279 population-based registries in 67 countries (CONCORD-2). Lancet 385, 977-1010.

Dietze, E. et al., (2015). Triple-negative breast cancer in African-American women: disparities versus biology. Nature Reviews Cancer 15, 248–254.

Junankar, S. et al., (2015). ID4 controls mammary stem cells and marks breast cancers with a stem cell-like phenotype. Nature Communications 6, Article number: 6548 doi:10.1038/ncomms7548.

 

Risk Assessment

For UK readers a title that instantly raises the spectre of the ’Elf & Safety police and the annoyance, irritation and amusement generated by the seemingly ubiquitous injunctions of their minions. Even my department is not spared, the harbinger of warm weather invariably being an email reminding us that this is no reason for abandoning the rule that at all times we should wear a lab coat – though, to be fair, our local enforcer usually includes the cheeky inference that we retain the option of going naked underneath. Ah, The Joy of Science! ’E & S’s reputation comes, of course, from periodically making the headlines by banning a centuries-old tradition in some rustic backwater involving such fun activities as rolling cheeses down a hill.

Stuart Kettell and sprout

Stuart Kettell and sprout

Mind you, they’ve slipped up recently by allowing Stuart Kettell to push a Brussels sprout up Mount Snowdon with his nose. As that’s 3,560ft (vertically) he probably did lasting damage to his knees, to say nothing of his hooter, as well as inflicting grievous bodily harm on 22 sprouts (they wear out on the basalt, obviously). By his own admission, he’s probably mad – but he did at least raise some money for Macmillan Cancer Support.

 

But why are we bothered about assessing risk?

Setting the above entertainment to one side, estimating risk can be a really serious business and never more so than when it comes to cancer. It’s an especially contentious, long-running issue for breast cancer and both in Betrayed by Nature and more recently in Behind the Screen I tried to crystallize some clear guidelines from the vast amount of available info. In short these were: ignore commercial plugs for thermography – the only test to go for is mammography – i.e. X-ray imaging to find breast cancer before a lump can be felt. And the simple message you were relieved to read in BbN was that, whilst the matter is controversial, if you are offered screening, accept – but be aware that the method is not perfect. There’s a small risk that a cancer may be missed and a bigger chance that something abnormal but harmless will be picked up – a signal for intervention (by surgery and drugs) and that, in those cases, would be unnecessary.

And we’re revisiting this question?

Because there have been some recent contributions to the debate that might well have increased confusion and concern in equal measure for women who are desperately trying to make sense of it all. The most controversial of these comes from a panel of experts (The Swiss Medical Board) who reviewed the history of mammography screening – and recommended that the current programmes in Switzerland should be phased out and not replaced.

Needless to say, their report caused a furore, not only in Switzerland, with experts damning its conclusions as ‘unethical’ – mainly because they ran counter to the consensus that screening has to be a good thing.

So what did the Swiss Big Cheeses point out to get into such hot water? Their view after considering the cumulative evidence was that systematic mammography might prevent about one breast cancer death for every 1,000 women screened. However, two other things struck them. First, it was not clear that this result outweighed the disadvantages of screening – what are inelegantly referred to as the ‘harms’ – the detection and treatment of something ‘abnormal but harmless’ mentioned earlier. Second that, on the basis of a survey by American group, women had a grossly optimistic idea of the benefits of mammography.

Good versus bad

Two of the weightiest bits of evidence that led them to conclude that screening does more harm than good were studies that had combined several independent investigations – what’s called a meta-analysis – which is a way of increasing your sample size and hence getting a more meaningful answer. One of these (The Independent United Kingdom Panel on Breast Cancer Screening) pulled together 11 trials from which it emerged that women invited to screening had a reduction of about 20% in their risk of dying from breast cancer compared with controls who were not offered screening. So far so good. However, inevitably there were differences in methods between the trials, which made the UK Panel very cagey about drawing more specific conclusions but their best estimate was that, for every 10,000 UK women aged 50 years invited to screening for the next 20 years, 43 deaths from breast cancer would be prevented and 129 cases would be over-diagnosed. Over-diagnosis means detection of cancers that would never have been emerged during the lifetime of the individuals and these healthy women will be needlessly subjected to some combination of surgical interventions, radiotherapy and chemotherapy.

The second combined study is from The Cochrane Collaboration, the trials involving more than 600,000 women. Their review also emphasized the variation in quality between different studies and noted that the most reliable showed that screening did not reduce breast cancer mortality. However, less rigorous methods introduced bias towards showing that screening did reduced breast cancer mortality. In this sort of trial “less rigorous” relates particularly to the problem of ensuring that the two groups of subjects are truly randomized – i.e. that nothing influences whether a woman is assigned to receive screening mammograms or not. This is much harder than it sounds, mainly because human beings do the assigning so there is always a chance of either a genuine mistake or a flaw in the design of a particular study. One simple example of how the best laid plans … The consent form for a study specifically states that women are assigned, at random, to either the mammography or no mammography group. Women are then examined by a specially trained nurse. However, if these two steps are reversed, assignment may be biased by the findings of the examination. Precisely such a failure to adhere to a protocol has been revealed in at least one study.

Making the liberal assumption that screening reduces mortality by 15% and that over-diagnosis occurs at a rate of 30%, they estimated that for every 2000 women invited for screening over 10 years, one will avoid dying of breast cancer and 10 will be treated unnecessarily. In addition, false alarms will subject 200 women to prolonged distress and anxiety.

All of which explains why, taking everything into consideration, the Big Cheeses recommended that the Swiss abandon mammography screening.

MammogramWhat does the NHS say?

Actions speak louder than words and in the UK women aged 50 to 70 are invited for mammography screening every three years. By way of explanation, the NHS document (NHS breast screening: Helping you decide) says that for every 200 screened about one life is saved from breast cancer. The American Cancer Society recommends screening annually from age 40 – so it’s clear that Britain and the USA are firmly in favour.

You will have noted that the NHS figure of one saved for every 200 screened is seriously at odds with the findings summarized above and they don’t say where it comes from. However, they are clear about the critical point in saying “for every 1 woman who has her life saved from breast cancer, about three women are diagnosed with a cancer that would never have become life-threatening.”

Misplaced optimism

It will be obvious by now that attaching precise numbers to the effects of screening is next to impossible but the overall message is clear. At best screening yields a small reduction in breast cancer deaths but this comes with a substantially greater number of women who are treated unnecessarily – hence the Swiss position that it is ethically difficult to justify a public health program that does more harm than good.

It’s a bit difficult to assess just how knowledgeable women are about the benefits of mammography screening but one study that tried came up with some positively alarming pointers. A telephone survey of more than 4000 randomly chosen females over 15 years of age in the USA, the UK, Italy and Switzerland revealed that a substantial majority believed that (i) screening prevents or reduces the risk of getting breast cancer, (ii) screening at least halves breast cancer mortality, and (iii) 10 years of regular screening prevents 10 or more breast cancer deaths per 1000 women.

A clear conclusion?

Rates of breast cancer mortality are declining. Hooray! And the five-year survival rate in developed countries is now about 90%. Hooray again! It seems probable that this trend is more though improved treatments and greater awareness – leading to early detection – than because of screening. Nevertheless, all that doesn’t alter the fact that where women are offered the choice they need to be as well informed as possible. The weaknesses of the telephone survey are obvious but the implication that misconceptions are widespread indicates that we need to do much better at explaining the facts of mammography screening.

References

Biller-Andorno N. and Jüni P. (2014). Abolishing mammography screening programs? A view from the Swiss Medical Board. New England Journal of Medicine 370:1965-7.

Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening. (2012). The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet 380:1778-86.

Gøtzsche, P.C. and Jørgensen, K.J. (2013). Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 6:CD001877.

Domenighetti G, D’Avanzo B, Egger M, et al. (2003). Women’s perception of the benefits of mammography screening: population-based survey in four countries. Int J Epidemiol., 32:816-21.

Heir of the Dog

I’ve probably in the past owned up to causing generations of students to do that raised eyebrow thing, familiar to all parents of teenagers, that, far more pointedly than words, says ‘The old boy’s finally lost it.’ Indeed I may well have a bit of a causative repertoire but one that unfailingly works is revealing that, even after a life in science, I still get ‘Wow’ moments every couple of months or so when I read or hear of some new discovery, method or insight that brings home yet again the wonder of Nature – or has you asking ‘Why didn’t I think of that?’ (The response to that one’s easy, by the way, so please don’t write in).

A common question

The most recent of these jaw-dropping events relates to a question often asked about cancer: ‘Can you catch it from someone else?’ In other words, can cancers be passed from one person to another by infection, much as happens with ’flu? The answer’s ‘No’ but, as usual in this field, even the firmest statement can do with a little explanation. The first point is that the ‘No’ is true even for 20% or so of cancers that are actually started by microbial infection – what you might call ‘bugs’ – bacteria, fungi, and viruses. One such, the bacterium Helicobacter pylori, can cause stomach ulcers that may lead to cancer. Those even smaller bugbears, viruses (typically one one-hundredth the size of a bacterium), are responsible for much of the cervical and liver cancer burden world-wide. Oh, and there’s a little, single-cell parasite (Trichomonas vaginalis), the most common non-viral, sexually transmitted infection in the world that, in men, can cause prostate cancer. But these infections are not cancers even though they may be an underlying cause – bacteria through prolonged inflammation and effects on the immune system and viruses by making proteins that affect how cells behave. Only when these perturbations cause genetic damage – i.e. DNA mutations – do you have a cancer. Which is why the answer to the original question is ‘No.’

There’s always one

Well, two in this case – and, given that we’re talking about cancer, you won’t be surprised that there are some oddities. They’re not exceptions to the ‘No’ answer because they occur in other animals – not in humans – but, in each, tumour cells are directly transferred from one creature to another – so it is cancer by infection. One such contagious tumour occurs in the Tasmanian devil. It’s transmitted by biting, an activity popular with these little chaps, and it gives rise to a particularly virulent facial tumor, eventually fatal because it prevents eating. To counter the probability that Tasmanian devils will become extinct in their native habitat, a number of Australian sanctuaries have breeding programmes aimed at setting up a disease-free colony on Kangaroo Island, South Australia.

TDs

Tas D

 

 

 

 

 

Tasmanian devils – cancer-free – Lone Pine Koala Sanctuary, Brisbane

A very similar condition in dogs known as canine transmissible venereal tumour (CTVT: also called Sticker’s sarcoma), mainly affects the external genitalia. First spotted in the nineteenth century by a Russian vet, it too is spread either by licking or biting and also through coitus. Dogs with CTVT can now be found on five continents and, from DNA analysis, we’ve known for some time that – remarkably – all their cancers are descended from a single, original tumour cell that appeared many years ago. They’re like one of those cell lines grown in labs all over the world, except they’ve been going far longer than any lab – with man’s best friend doing the cultivating.

So what is new?

Elizabeth Murchison and colleagues at The Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Cambridge have just produced the first whole-genome sequences of two of these tumours – from Australia and Brazil (an Aboriginal camp dog and a purebred American cocker spaniel). These confirmed that all CTVTs descend from a single ancestor who, they estimated, was trotting around about 11,000 years ago. The last common relative of the two dogs whose tumours were sequenced lived about 500 years ago, before his descendants went walkies to different continents.

And the ‘Wow’?

We already had a pretty good idea of how CTVTs have been handed down. In this paper the really amazing bit came in the detail. The authors estimated roughly how many mutations were present in each tumour. Answer: a staggering 1.9 million. And it’s staggering partly because it’s only slightly less than a change every 1,000 units (bases) in dog DNA but it’s truly awesome when you note that it’s several hundred times more than you find in most human cancers. We’re getting used to the idea of thousands or tens of thousands of mutations turning up in human cancer cells with associated gross disruptions of individual chromosomes. But these canine cancers display genetic mayhem on a massive scale – perhaps best visualized by comparing their chromosomes with those of a normal dog using a method that labels each with a different colour. A glance at the two pictures tells the story: all the cancer chromosomes from one of the tumour-bearing dogs (on the right) have been shuffled as if in some molecular card game. The full range of colours can still be seen, but of the normal pattern of 39 pairs of identical segments of DNA (left) there is no sign.

Two dogs chromos

Dog chromosomes. Left: normal; right: CTVT

(from Murchison, E.P. et al. (2014) Science 343, 437-440)

It seems incredible that cells can survive such a shattering of their genetic material – a state called ‘genetic instability’ because, once DNA damage sets in, mutations usually continue to accumulate. These cancers are uniquely bizarre, however, because although their genomes have been blown to smithereens, not only do the cells survive but they’ve continued suspended in this surreal state for centuries. They’re genetically stable – it really is the cellular equivalent of balancing an elephant on a pin.

‘Wow’ Indeed – but so what?

So like me you’ve been blown away by these discoveries but you may be asking, apart from the excitement, what’s in it for us humans? Well, there’s one other very strange thing about these dog cancers. Infected animals do indeed develop the most unpleasant, large tumours – but most of them are eventually rejected by the host dog. That is, its immune system gets to work to eliminate them – and after that the dog is immune to further infection. We are only just beginning to find ways of boosting the human immune system so that it can attack cancers and maybe, just maybe, we can extract from the stable chaos of the CTVT genome the secret of how they provoke rejection – and maybe that will guide human treatments.

Reference

Murchison, E.P. et al. (2014). Transmissible Dog Cancer Genome Reveals the Origin and History of an Ancient Cell Lineage. Science 343, 437-440.

The Hay Festival

According to the Hay Festival  a recording of my talk ‘Demystifying Cancer’ on Wednesday 28th May should be available on their web site shortly and it can also be heard on the university site. However, I thought it might be helpful to post a version, not least for the for the rather breathless lady who arrived at the book signing session apologising for missing the lecture because she’d got stuck in mud. So for her and perhaps for many others I had the privilege of chatting to afterwards, read on …

 The Amazing World of Cells, Molecules … and CancerOpening pic

One of the biggest influences on my early years was the composer and conductor Antony Hopkins, who died a few days ago. Most of what I knew about music by the time I was 15 came from his wonderfully clear dissections of compositions in the series Talking About Music broadcast by the BBC Third Programme. When he was axed by the Beeb in 1992 for being ‘too elitist’ – yes, they talked that sort of drivel even then – Hopkins might have wished he’d been a biologist. After all, biology must be the easiest subject in the world to talk about. Your audience is hooked from the outset because they know it’s about them – if not directly then because all living things on the planet are interlinked – so even the BBC would struggle to make an ‘elitism’ charge stick. They know too that it’s beautiful, astonishing and often funny – both from what they see around them and also, of course, courtesy of David Attenborough. So it’s not a surprise when you show them that the micro-world of cells and molecules is every bit as wonderful.

The secret of life

What does come as a bit of a shock to most non-scientists is when you explain the secret of life. No, that’s not handing round pots of an immortalization elixir – much better, it’s outlining what’s sometimes rather ponderously called the central dogma of molecular biology – the fact that our genetic material (aka DNA) is made from only four basic units (most easily remembered by their initials: A, C, G and T – humans have over three thousand million of these stuck together). This is our ‘genome’ and the ‘genetic code’ enshrined in the DNA sequence makes us what we are – with small variations giving rise to the differences between individuals. The genetic code carries instructions for glueing together another set of small chemicals to make proteins. There are 20 of these (amino acids) and they can be assembled in any order to make proteins that can be thousands or even tens of thousands of amino acids long. These assemblies fold up into 3D shapes that give them specific activities. Proteins make living things what they are – they’re ‘the machines of life’ – and their infinite variety is responsible for all the different species to have appeared on earth. Can the basis of life really be so simple?

The paradox of cancer

Turning to cancer, a three word definition of ‘cells behaving badly’ would do fine. A more scientific version would be ‘cells proliferating abnormally.’ That is, cells reproducing either when they shouldn’t, or more rapidly than normal, or doing so in the wrong place. The cause of this unfriendly behavior is damaged DNA, that is, alteration in the genetic code – any such change being a ‘mutation’. If a mutation affects a protein so that it becomes, say, hyperactive at making cells proliferate (i.e. dividing to make more cells), you have a potential cancer ‘driver’. So at heart cancer’s very simple: it’s driven by mutations in DNA that affect proteins controlling proliferation. That’s true even of the 20% or so of cancers caused by chronic infection – because that provokes inflammation, which in turn leads to DNA damage.

The complexity of cancer arises because, in contrast to several thousand other genetic diseases in which just a single gene is abnormal (e.g., cystic fibrosis), tumour cells accumulate lots of mutations. Within this genetic mayhem, relatively small groups of potent mutations (half a dozen or so) emerge that do the ‘driving’. Though only a few ‘driver mutations’ are required, an almost limitless number of combinations can arise.

Accumulating mutations takes time, which is why cancers are predominantly diseases of old age. Even so, we should be aware that life is a game of genetic roulette in which each individual has to deal with the dice thrown by their parents. The genetic cards we’re dealt at birth may combine with mutations that we pick up all the time (due to radiation from the sun and the ground, from some foods and as a result of chemical reactions going on inside us) to cause cancers and, albeit rarely, in unlucky individuals these can arise at an early age. However, aside from what Mother Nature endows, humans are prone to giving things a helping hand through self-destructive life-style choices – the major culprits, of course, being tobacco, alcohol and poor diets, the latter being linked to becoming overweight and obese. Despite these appalling habits we’re living longer (twice as long as at the beginning of the twentieth century) which means that cancer incidence will inevitably rise as we have more time to pick up the necessary mutations. Nevertheless, if we could ban cigarettes, drastically reduce alcohol consumption and eat sensibly we could reduce the incidence of cancers by well over a half.

How are we doing?

Some readers may recall that forty-odd years ago in 1971 President Nixon famously committed the intellectual and technological might of the USA to a ‘War on Cancer’ saying, in effect, let’s give the boffins pots of money to sort it out pronto. Amazing discoveries and improved treatments have emerged in the wake of that dramatic challenge (not all from Uncle Sam, by the way!) but, had we used the first grant money to make a time machine from which we were able to report back that in 2013 nearly six hundred thousand Americans died from cancer, that the global death toll was over eight million people a year and will rise to more than 13 million by 2030 (according to the Union for International Cancer Control), rather less cash might subsequently have been doled out. Don’t get me wrong: Tricky Dicky was spot on to do what he did and scientists are wonderful – clever, dedicated, incredibly hard-working, totally uninterested in personal gain and almost always handsome and charming. But the point here is that, well, sometimes scientific questions are a little bit more difficult than they look.

Notwithstanding, there have been fantastic advances. The five year survival rates for breast and prostate cancers have gone from below 50% to around 90% – improvements to which many factors have contributed including greater public awareness (increasing the take-up of screening services), improved surgical and radiology methods and, of course, new drugs. But for all the inspiration, perspiration and fiscal lubrication, cancer still kills over one third of all people in what we like to refer to as the “developed” world, globally breast cancer killed over half a million in 2012 and for many types of cancer almost no impact has been made on the survival figures. In the light of that rather gloomy summary we might ask whether there is any light at the end of the tunnel.

The Greatest Revolution

From one perspective it’s surprising we’ve made much progress at all because until just a few years ago we had little idea about the molecular events that drive cancers and most of the advances in drug treatment have come about empirically, as the scientists say – in plain language by trial and error. But in 2003 there occurred one of the great moments in science – arguably the most influential event in the entire history of medical science – the unveiling of the first complete DNA sequence of a human genome. This was the product of a miraculous feat of international collaboration called The Human Genome Project that determined the order of the four units (A, C, G and T) that make up human DNA (i.e. the sequence). Set up in 1990, the project was completed by 2003, two years ahead of schedule and under budget.

If the human genome project was one of the most sensational triumphs in the history of science what has happened in the ensuing 10 years is perhaps even more dazzling. Quite breathtaking technical advances now mean that DNA can be sequenced on a truly industrial scale and it is possible to obtain the complete sequence of a human genome in a day or so at a cost of about $1,000.

These developments represent the greatest revolution because they are already having an impact on every facet of biological science: food production, microbiology and pesticides, biofuels – and medicine. But no field has been more dramatically affected by this technological broadside than cancer and already thousands of genomes have been sequenced from a wide range of tumours. The most striking result has been to reveal the full detail of the astonishing genetic mayhem that characterizes cancer cells. Tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of mutations featuring every kind of molecular gymnastics imaginable occur in a typical tumour cell, creating a landscape of stunning complexity. At first sight this makes the therapeutic challenge seem daunting, but all may not be lost because the vast majority of this genetic damage plays no role in cancer development (they’re ‘passenger’ mutations) and the power of sequencing now means they can be sifted from the much smaller hand of ‘driver’ mutations. From this distillation have emerged sets of ‘mutational signatures’ for most of the major types of cancers. This is a seismic shift from the traditional method of assessing tumours – looking directly at the cells after treating them with markers to highlight particular features – and this genetic approach, providing for the first time a rigorous molecular basis for classifying tumours, is already affecting clinical practice through its prognostic potential and informing decisions about treatment.

A new era

One of the first applications of genomics to cancer, was undertaken by a group at The Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute near Cambridge (where the UK part of the Human Genome Project had been carried out), who screened samples of the skin cancer known as malignant melanoma. This is now the fifth most common UK cancer – in young people (aged 15 to 34) it’s the second most common – and it killed over 2,200 in 2012. Remarkably, about half the tumours were found to have a hyperactivating mutation in a gene called BRAF, the effect being to switch on a signal pathway so that it drives cell proliferation continuously. It was a remarkable finding because up until then virtually nothing was known about the molecular biology of this cancer. Even more amazingly, within a few years it had lead to the development of drugs that caused substantial regression of melanomas that had spread to secondary sites (metastasized).

This was an early example of what has become known as personalized medicine – the concept that molecular analysis will permit treatment regimens to be tailored to the stage of development of an individual’s cancer. And maybe, at some distant time, the era of personalized medicine will truly come about. At the moment, however, we have very few drugs that are specific for cancer cells – and even when drugs work initially, patients almost invariably relapse as tumours become resistant and the cancer returns – one of the major challenges for cancer biology.

It behoves us therefore to think laterally, of impersonal medicine if you like, and one alternative approach to trying to hit the almost limitless range of targets revealed by genomics is to ask: do tumour cells have a molecular jugular – a master regulator through which all the signals telling it to proliferate have to pass. There’s an obvious candidate – a protein called MYC that is essential for cells to proliferate. The problem with stopping MYC working is that humans make about one million new cells a second, just to maintain the status quo – so informed opinion says that blocking MYC will kill so many cells the animal will die – which would certainly fix cancer but not quite in the way we’re aiming for. Astoundingly, it turns out in mice at least it doesn’t work like that. Normal cells tolerate attenuation of MYC activity pretty well but the tumour cells die. What a result!! We should, of course, bear in mind that the highway of cancer therapy is littered with successful mouse treatments that simply didn’t work in us – but maybe this time we’ll get lucky.

An Achilles’ heel?

In defining cancers we noted the possibility that tumour cells might proliferate in the wrong place. So important is this capacity that most cancer patients die as a result of tumour cells spreading around the body and founding secondary colonies at new sites – a phenomenon called metastasis. Well over 100 years ago a clever London physician by the name of Stephen Paget drew a parallel between the growth of tumours and plants: ‘When a plant goes to seed, its seeds are carried in all directions; but they can only live and grow if they fall on congenial soil.’ From this emerged the “seed and soil” theory as at least a step to explaining metastasis. Thus have things languished until very recent findings have begun to lift the metastatic veil. Quite unexpectedly, in mouse models, primary tumours dispatch chemical messengers into the blood stream long before any of their cells set sail. These protein news-bearers essentially tag a landing site within the circulatory system on which the tumour cells touch down. Which sites are tagged depends on the type of tumour – consistent with the fact that human cancers show different preferences in metastatic targets.

These revelations have been matched by stunning new video methods that permit tumour cells to be tracked inside live mice. For the first time this has shone a light on the mystery of how tumour cells get into the circulation – the first step in metastasis. Astonishingly tumour cells attach themselves to a type of normal cell, macrophages, whose usual job is to engulf and digest cellular debris and bugs. The upshot of this embrace is that the macrophages cause the cells that line blood vessels to lose contact with each other, creating gaps in the vessel wall through which tumour cells squeeze to make their escape. This extraordinary hijacking has prognostic value and is being used to develop a test for the risk of metastasis in breast cancers.

The very fact that cancers manifest their most devastating effects by spreading to other sites may lay bare an Achilles’ heel. Other remarkable technical developments mean that it’s now possible to fish out cancer cells (or DNA they’ve released) from a teaspoonful of circulating blood (that’s a pretty neat trick in itself, given we’re talking about fewer than 100 tumour cells in a sea of several billion cells for every cubic millimeter of blood). Coupling this to genome sequencing has already permitted the response of patients to drug therapy to be monitored but an even more exciting prospect is that through these methods we may be moving towards cancer detection perhaps years earlier than is possible by current techniques.

As we’ve seen, practically every aspect of cancer biology is now dominated by genomics. Last picIt’s so trendy that anyone can join in. Songs have been written about DNA and you can even make a musical of your own genetic code, French physicist Joel Sternheimer having come up with a new genre – protein music – in which sequence information is converted to musical notes. Antony Hopkins, ever receptive to new ideas, would have been enthralled and, with characteristic enthusiasm, been only too happy to devote an episode of Talking About Music to making tunes from nature.