Skip Navigation


Integrative and Comparative Biology Advance Access originally published online on June 28, 2007
Integrative and Comparative Biology 2007 47(2):317-328; doi:10.1093/icb/icm062
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
47/2/317    most recent
icm062v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Nagy, J. D.
Right arrow Articles by Cropper, J. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology. All rights reserved. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org.

Why don't all whales have cancer? A novel hypothesis resolving Peto's paradox

John D. Nagy1,*,{dagger}, Erin M. Victor* and Jenese H. Cropper*
*Department of Life Sciences, Scottsdale Community College, 9000 E. Chaparral Rd., Scottsdale, AZ 85256, USA;
{dagger}Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1804, USA

Correspondence: 1E-mail: john.nagy{at}sccmail.maricopa.edu

Larger organisms have more potentially carcinogenic cells, tend to live longer and require more ontogenic cell divisions. Therefore, intuitively one might expect cancer incidence to scale with body size. Evidence from mammals, however, suggests that the cancer risk does not correlate with body size. This observation defines "Peto's paradox." Here, we propose a novel hypothesis to resolve Peto's paradox. We suggest that malignant tumors are disadvantaged in larger hosts. In particular, we hypothesize that natural selection acting on competing phenotypes among the cancer cell population will tend to favor aggressive "cheaters" that then grow as a tumor on their parent tumor, creating a hypertumor that damages or destroys the original neoplasm. In larger organisms, tumors need more time to reach lethal size, so hypertumors have more time to evolve. So, in large organisms, cancer may be more common and less lethal. We illustrate this hypothesis in silico using a previously published hypertumor model. Results from the model predict that malignant neoplasms in larger organisms should be disproportionately necrotic, aggressive, and vascularized than deadly tumors in small mammals. These predictions may serve as the basis on which to test the hypothesis, but to our knowledge, no one has yet performed a systematic investigation of comparative necrosis, histopathology, or vascularization among mammalian cancers.


From the symposium "Ecological Dimorphisms in Vertebrates: Proximate and Ultimate Causes" presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Integration and Comparative Biology, January 3–7, 2007, at Phoenix, Arizona.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.