About 40 years ago Richard Peto surmised that if every living cell has a theoretically equal probability of getting cancer, then large animals should have higher rates of cancer than small animals because they have many more cells and typically live longer. When he went about testing his idea, however, the University of Oxford epidemiologist, now 71 years old, found that this logic does not play out in nature. It turns out that all mammals have relatively similar rates of cancer.
Researchers have come up with to explain . One explanation holds that the faster metabolisms of small animals generate more cancerous free radicals. Another suggests that evolution has equipped larger animals with extra tumor suppressor genes. Aris Katzourakis, an evolutionary biologist at Oxford, thinks an animal's ability to suppress viruses that jump into and out of its DNA may partially explain the paradox, a hypothesis he and his colleagues put forward in July in .
These jumping viruses, known as , can create cancerous mutations at the locations in the genome where they incorporate their own genes. Because the viruses have evolved with mammals for millions of years, their genetic material has come to make up 5 to 10 percent of most vertebrate genomes (including our own), although most of it is now inactive.
No comments:
Post a Comment