I mentioned a few times how in my view (and in that of other people I have the luck of meeting and working with) tumours are not just colllections of cells behaving nasty but are part of a grander ecosystem (including my last post). The image taken from Anderson and Quaranta, Nature Reviews Cancer 8, 227-234 shows this in a simplified manner.
One aspect of the tumour-as-ecosystem view that might not be easy to reconcile is that of stem cells. Stem cells can self-renew or differentiate into a number of different specialised types. Their role in cancer is still not fully understood but it is likely to be significant. Is the role they fulfil something specific of developing organisms or are there equivalent roles in traditional ecosystems?
It is known that in certain species of fishes, individuals can be female one season and male the following one meaning that they have keep their potential to differentiate and perform different functions. In some ant colonies, all the females (the vast majority of the colony) are genetically capable of becoming the queen (a mophologically and functionally distinct individual) if provided with the right environmental cues.
There are certainly some similarities between stem cells and certain individuals in certain species. I am not sure about how this affects ecosystems in the way that stem cells are thought to affect cancer (to say nothing of development) but goes to say that the capacity of some individuals to reprogramme their phenotypes to perform different functions is something that evolution will favour.
I would not mind re-programming my phenotype to become, when needed, a cancer biologist, a clinical radiotherapist, a radiation biologist, a good mentor, as well as a good cook. Will evolution favour me and my fellow researchers?
Hi Massimo, I have no doubt that if such phenotype emerged it would have a lot going on for it but I fear that the trade offs could be significant. These things seldom come for free so watch out for trade offs :)