Tissue Organization Field Theory Research Articles

An insight into cancer palaeobiology: does the Mesozoic neoplasm support tissue organization field theory of tumorigenesis?

BackgroundNeoplasms are common across the animal kingdom and seem to be a feature plesiomorphic for metazoans, related with an increase in somatic complexity. The fossil record of cancer complements our knowledge of the origin of neoplasms and vulnerability of various vertebrate taxa. Here, we document the first undoubted record of primary malignant bone tumour in a Mesozoic non-amniote. The diagnosed osteosarcoma developed in the vertebral intercentrum of a temnospondyl amphibian, Metoposaurus krasiejowensis from the Krasiejów locality, southern Poland.ResultsA wide array of data collected from gross anatomy, histology, and microstructure of the affected intercentrum reveals the tumour growth dynamics and pathophysiological aspects of the neoplasm formation on the histological level. The pathological process almost exclusively pertains to the periosteal part of the bone composed from a highly vascularised tissue with lamellar matrix. The unorganised arrangement of osteocyte lacunae observed in the tissue is characteristic for bone tissue types connected with static osteogenesis, and not for lamellar bone. The neoplastic bone mimics on the structural level the fast growing fibrolamellar bone, but on the histological level develops through a novel ossification type. The physiological process of bone remodelling inside the endochondral domain continued uninterrupted across the pathology of the periosteal part.ConclusionsBased on the results, we discuss our case study’s consistence with the Tissue Organization Field Theory of tumorigenesis, which locates the causes of neoplastic transformations in disorders of tissue architecture.

Bioelectricity Buzz.

Bioelectricity Buzz.

The cancer puzzle: Welcome to organicism

During the fifty years since President Nixon declared the “War on Cancer”, those inside and outside the cancer community have witnessed the systematic moving of the goalposts attitude to accommodate evidence into an inadequate theory, that is, the Somatic Mutation Theory (SMT). This sorry state promoted a renewable yearly promise that at the end of the next 10-year period the promises uttered in 1971 would become reality. Each failure triggered calls to do more of the same research under the same theory, routinely using more and more sophisticated technology. Meanwhile, in the last few years, an unambiguous general consensus has emerged acknowledging that this overall long, intensive effort has failed, and that it is likely that the solution to the cancer problem resides elsewhere, namely, in alternative theoretical principles of biology. In this essay we concentrate, first, on the big picture, from the philosophical stance (reductionism versus organicism) to the need to adopt rigorous theories. From this novel perspective we conceptualize cancer as a disease of tissue organization akin to development gone awry. Finally, having identified both a promising stance and a useful theory, i.e., the tissue organization field theory (TOFT), we call for abandoning the SMT and for adopting the more promising TOFT.

A bioelectric model of carcinogenesis, including propagation of cell membrane depolarization and reversal therapies

As the main theory of carcinogenesis, the Somatic Mutation Theory, increasingly presents difficulties to explain some experimental observations, different theories are being proposed. A major alternative approach is the Tissue Organization Field Theory, which explains cancer origin as a tissue regulation disease instead of having a mainly cellular origin. This work fits in the latter hypothesis, proposing the bioelectric field, in particular the cell membrane polarization state, and ionic exchange through ion channels and gap junctions, as an important mechanism of cell communication and tissue organization and regulation. Taking into account recent experimental results and proposed bioelectric models, a computational model of cancer initiation was developed, including the propagation of a cell depolarization wave in the tissue under consideration. Cell depolarization leads to a change in its state, with the activation and deactivation of several regulation pathways, increasing cell proliferation and motility, changing its epigenetic state to a more stem cell-like behavior without the requirement of genomic mutation. The intercellular communication via gap junctions leads, in certain circumstances, to a bioelectric state propagation to neighbor cells, in a chain-like reaction, till an electric discontinuity is reached. However, this is a reversible process, and it was shown experimentally that, by implementing a therapy targeted on cell ion exchange channels, it is possible to reverse the state and repolarize cells. This mechanism can be an important alternative way in cancer prevention, diagnosis and therapy, and new experiments are proposed to test the presented hypothesis.

New hypotheses for cancer generation and progression

Since Nixon famously declared war on cancer in 1971, trillions of dollars have been spent on cancer research but the life expectancy for most forms of cancer is still poor. There are many reasons for the partial success of cancer translational research. One of these can be the predominance of certain paradigms that potentially narrowed the vision in interpreting cancer. The main paradigm to explain carcinogenesis is based on DNA mutations, which is well interpreted by the somatic mutation theory (SMT). However, a different theory claims that cancer is instead a tissue disease as proposed by the Tissue Organization Field Theory (TOFT). Here, we propose new hypotheses to explain the origin and pathogenesis of cancer. In this perspective, the systemic-evolutionary theory of cancer (SETOC) is discussed as well as how the microenvironment affects the adaptation of transformed cells and the reversion to a unicellular-like or embryo-like phenotype.

Chaos and cancers. Theories concerning carcinogenesis.

One of the most intriguing problems in biomedical sciences is the theory explaining cancer formation. It is known that cancer is the result of many molecular processes, the presence of oncogenic factors and the loss of apoptosis of affected cells. We currently have hypotheses based on carcinogenesis because of a single cell gene mutation, i.e. somatic mutation theory (SMT), or disorders in tissue architecture and intercellular communication called (TOFT) Tissue Organization Field Theory. An attempt to combine these separate and compatible cause and effect pathways into one unified theory of cancer transformation is the theory of chaotic adaptation. The new interpretative model is the systemic-evolution theory of cancer (SETOC) which postulates disintegration between the symbiosis of "energy" and "information" in normal cells. There are also epidemiological studies confirming that some types of cancer arise from viral infection. So, let us ask the question, can one hypothesis explain all the features of cancer?

Cancer associated fibroblast: Mediators of tumorigenesis

It is well accepted that the tumor microenvironment plays a pivotal role in cancer onset, development, and progression. The majority of clinical interventions are designed to target either cancer or stroma cells. These emphases have been directed by one of two prevailing theories in the field, the Somatic Mutation Theory and the Tissue Organization Field Theory, which represent two seemingly opposing concepts. This review proposes that the two theories are mutually inclusive and should be concurrently considered for cancer treatments. Specifically, this review discusses the dynamic and reciprocal processes between stromal cells and extracellular matrices, using pancreatic cancer as an example, to demonstrate the inclusivity of the theories. Furthermore, this review highlights the functions of cancer associated fibroblasts, which represent the major stromal cell type, as important mediators of the known cancer hallmarks that the two theories attempt to explain.

Over a century of cancer research: Inconvenient truths and promising leads.

Despite over a century of intensive efforts, the great gains promised by the War on Cancer nearly 50 years ago have not materialized. Since 1999, we have analyzed the lack of progress in explaining and “curing” cancer by examining the merits of the premises that determine how cancer is understood and treated. Our ongoing critical analyses have aimed at clarifying the sources of misunderstandings at the root of the cancer puzzle while providing a plausible and comprehensive biomedical perspective as well as a new theory of carcinogenesis that is compatible with evolutionary theory. In this essay, we explain how this new theory, the tissue organization field theory (TOFT), can help chart a path to progress for cancer researchers by explaining features of cancer that remain unexplainable from the perspective of the still hegemonic somatic mutation theory (SMT) and its variants. Of equal significance, the premises underlying the TOFT offer new perspectives on basic biological phenomena.

Chemoreceptors as a key to understanding carcinogenesis process.

The tissue organization field theory (TOFT) presented completely new, different from the previous one, perspective of research on neoplasm processes. It implicates that secretory neuroepithelial-like cells (NECs), putative chemoreceptors are probably responsible for the control of squamous epithelial cells proliferation in the digestive tract during hypoxia in gut breathing fish (GBF). On the other hand, chemoreceptors dysfunction can lead to uncontrolled proliferation and risk of cancer development in mammals, including humans. The studies on NECs like cells (signal capturing and transduction) may be crucial for understanding the processes of controlling the proliferation of squamous epithelial cells in the digestive tract of GBF fish during hypoxia states. This knowledge can contribute to the explanation of cancer processes.

Bioenergetics of life, disease and death phenomena

In this article, some new aspects of unified cell bioenergetics are presented. From the perspective of unified cell bioenergetics certain subsequent stages of cancer development, from initiation stage, through transformation to metastasis, are analyzed. Here we show that after transformation, cancer cells are permanently exposed to reactive oxygen species, that causes continual random DNA mutations and as a result genome and chromosomal destabilizations. The modern cancer attractor hypothesis has been extended in explaining cancer development. Discussion is conducted in light of current cancerogenesis research, including bioenergetic cancer initiation, the somatic mutation theory and the tissue organization field theory. In the article reasons complicating the discovery of patterns of cancer genome changes and cancer evolution are presented. In addition certain cancer therapeutic aspects are given attention to.

Mesenchymal Stem Cells: Miraculous Healers or Dormant Killers?

Mesenchymal Stem Cells (MSCs) are a heterogeneous population of fibroblast-like cells which maintain self-renewability and pluripotency to differentiate into mesodermal cell lineages. The use of MSCs in clinical settings began with high enthusiasm and the number of MSC-based clinical trials has been rising ever since. However; the very unique characteristics of MSCs that made them suitable to for therapeutic use, might give rise to unwanted outcomes, including tumor formation and progression. In this paper, we present a model of carcinogenesis initiated by MSCs, which chains together the tissue organization field theory, the stem cell theory, and the inflammation-cancer chain. We believe that some tissue resident stem cells could be leaked cells from bone marrow MSC pool to various injured tissue, which consequently transform and integrate in the host tissue. If the injury persists or chronic inflammation develops, as a consequence of recurring exposure to growth factors, cytokines, etc. the newly formed tissue from MSCs, which still has conserved their mesenchymal and stemness features, go through rapid population expansion, and nullify their tumor suppressor genes, and hence give rise to neoplastic cell (carcinomas, sarcomas, and carcino-sarcomas). Considering the probability of this hypothesis being true, the clinical and therapeutic use of MSCs should be with caution, and the recipients' long term follow-up seems to be insightful.

An Integrative Approach Toward Biology, Organisms, and Cancer.

Over the last two decades, we have challenged the hegemony of the somatic mutation theory of carcinogenesis (SMT) based on the lack of theoretical coherence of the premises adopted by its followers. We offered instead a theoretical alternative, the tissue organization field theory (TOFT), that is based on the premises that cancer is a tissue-based disease and that proliferation and motility is the default state of all cells. We went on to use a theory-neutral experimental protocol that simultaneously tested the TOFT and the SMT. The results of this test favored adopting the TOFT and rejecting the SMT. Recently, an analysis of the differences between the Physics of the inanimate and that of the living matter has led us to propose principles for the construction of a much needed theory of organisms. The three biological principles are (a) a default state, (b) a principle of variation, and (c) one of organization. The TOFT, defined as "development gone awry," fits well within the principles that we propose for a theory of organisms. This radical conceptual change opened up the possibility of anchoring mathematical modeling on genuine biological principles. By identifying constraints to the default state, multilevel biomechanical explanations become as legitimate as the molecular ones on which other modelers that adopt the SMT rely. Expanding research based on the premises of our theory of organisms will enrich a comprehensive understanding of normal development and of the one that goes awry.

Evidence amalgamation, plausibility, and cancer research

Cancer research is experiencing ‘paradigm instability’, since there are two rival theories of carcinogenesis which confront themselves, namely the somatic mutation theory and the tissue organization field theory. Despite this theoretical uncertainty, a huge quantity of data is available thanks to the improvement of genome sequencing techniques. Some authors think that the development of new statistical tools will be able to overcome the lack of a shared theoretical perspective on cancer by amalgamating as many data as possible. We think instead that a deeper understanding of cancer can be achieved by means of more theoretical work, rather than by merely accumulating more data. To support our thesis, we introduce the analytic view of theory development, which rests on the concept of plausibility, and make clear in what sense plausibility and probability are distinct concepts. Then, the concept of plausibility is used to point out the ineliminable role played by the epistemic subject in the development of statistical tools and in the process of theory assessment. We then move to address a central issue in cancer research, namely the relevance of computational tools developed by bioinformaticists to detect driver mutations in the debate between the two main rival theories of carcinogenesis. Finally, we briefly extend our considerations on the role that plausibility plays in evidence amalgamation from cancer research to the more general issue of the divergences between frequentists and Bayesians in the philosophy of medicine and statistics. We argue that taking into account plausibility-based considerations can lead to clarify some epistemological shortcomings that afflict both these perspectives.

An Emergence Framework of Carcinogenesis.

Experimental paradigms provide the framework for the understanding of cancer, and drive research and treatment, but are rarely considered by clinicians. The somatic mutation theory (SMT), in which cancer is considered a genetic disease, has been the predominant traditional model of cancer for over 50 years. More recently, alternative theories have been proposed, such as tissue organization field theory (TOFT), evolutionary models, and inflammatory models. Key concepts within the various models have led to them being difficult to reconcile. Progressively, it has been recognized that biological systems cannot be fully explained by the physicochemical properties of their constituent parts. There is an increasing call for a ‘systems’ approach. Incorporating the concepts of ‘emergence’, ‘systems’, ‘thermodynamics’, and ‘chaos’, a single integrated framework for carcinogenesis has been developed, enabling existing theories to become compatible as alternative mechanisms, facilitating the integration of bioinformatics and providing a structure in which translational research can flow from both ‘benchtop to bedside’ and ‘bedside to benchtop’. In this review, a basic understanding of the key concepts of ‘emergence’, ‘systems’, ‘system levels’, ‘complexity’, ‘thermodynamics’, ‘entropy’, ‘chaos’, and ‘fractals’ is provided. Non-linear mathematical equations are included where possible to demonstrate compatibility with bioinformatics. Twelve principles that define the ‘emergence framework of carcinogenesis’ are developed, with principles 1–10 encapsulating the key concepts upon which the framework is built and their application to carcinogenesis. Principle 11 relates the framework to cancer progression. Principle 12 relates to the application of the framework to translational research. The ‘emergence framework of carcinogenesis’ collates current paradigms, concepts, and evidence around carcinogenesis into a single framework that incorporates previously incompatible viewpoints and ideas. Any researcher, scientist, or clinician involved in research, treatment, or prevention of cancer can employ this framework.

Two Approaches to Cancer Development

The somatic mutation theory explaining the process of carcinogenesis is generally accepted. The theory postulates that carcinogenesis begins in a first renegade cell that undergoes gradual transformation from a healthy to a fully malignant state through the accumulation of genetic and epigenetic "hits". This theory focuses specifically on mutations and genetic aberrations, and their impact on cells. It considers tumors as populations of sick cells that lose control of their own proliferation. The theory was put forward by Robert Weinberg and Douglas Hanahan, and is the predominant view in current cancer biology. By contrast, the tissue organization field theory proposed by Carlos Sonnenschein and Ana Soto considers loss of physiological structure and function by a tissue as key events in tumor development. According to this theory, tumors arise at a tissue rather than at a cellular level. It is based on a presumption that proliferation status, rather than quiescence, is the default position of cells in multicellular organisms. The article aims to provide answers to following questions: Are the views of proponents of the somatic mutation theory (the reductionists) and proponents of the tissue organization field theory (the organicists) incompatible and incommensurable, even when the mainstream of tumor biology has shifted its attention from tumor cells toward the tumor microenvironment? Where to find a third interconnecting systemic approach? Is it useful to be aware of the controversy between reductionists and organicists? What this awareness contributes to? How do these alternative views influence practical oncology and tumor biology in general? Whether the true position is held by reductionists or organicists is unimportant. What is important is to be aware of the existence of these two concepts because this knowledge makes the way we think about tumor origin and development, and how we set up and interpret our experiments, more precise. carcinogenesis - mutation - cell - tissues - cell proliferation - cell quiescenceThis study was supported by grant of Internal Grant Agency of the Czech ministry of Health No. NT/13784-4/2012.The authors declare they have no potential conflicts of interest concerning drugs, products, or services used in the study.The Editorial Board declares that the manuscript met the ICMJE recommendation for biomedical papers.Submitted: 29. 7. 2015Accepted: 27. 4. 2016.

SMT and TOFT: Why and How They are Opposite and Incompatible Paradigms.

The Somatic Mutation Theory (SMT) has been challenged on its fundamentals by the Tissue Organization Field Theory of Carcinogenesis (TOFT). However, a recent publication has questioned whether TOFT could be a valid alternative theory of carcinogenesis to that presented by SMT. Herein we critically review arguments supporting the irreducible opposition between the two theoretical approaches by highlighting differences regarding the philosophical, methodological and experimental approaches on which they respectively rely. We conclude that SMT has not explained carcinogenesis due to severe epistemological and empirical shortcomings, while TOFT is gaining momentum. The main issue is actually to submit SMT to rigorous testing. This concern includes the imperatives to seek evidence for disproving one's hypothesis, and to consider the whole, and not just selective evidence.

Somatic Mutation Theory/Tissue Organization Field Theory: Has the Premise been Wrong All along?

ABSTRACT How to cite this article Sarode SC, Anand R, Sarode GS, Patil S. Somatic Mutation Theory/Tissue Organization Field Theory: Has the Premise been Wrong All along? World J Dent 2016;7(4):167-168.

Environmental endocrine disruptors: Effects on the human male reproductive system.

Incidences of altered development and neoplasia of male reproductive organs have increased during the last 50 years, as shown by epidemiological data. These data are associated with the increased presence of environmental chemicals, specifically "endocrine disruptors," that interfere with normal hormonal action. Much research has gone into testing the effects of specific endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) on the development of male reproductive organs and endocrine-related cancers in both in vitro and in vivo models. Efforts have been made to bridge the accruing laboratory findings with the epidemiological data to draw conclusions regarding the relationship between EDCs, altered development and carcinogenesis. The ability of EDCs to predispose target fetal and adult tissues to neoplastic transformation is best explained under the framework of the tissue organization field theory of carcinogenesis (TOFT), which posits that carcinogenesis is development gone awry. Here, we focus on the available evidence, from both empirical and epidemiological studies, regarding the effects of EDCs on male reproductive development and carcinogenesis of endocrine target tissues. We also critique current research methodology utilized in the investigation of EDCs effects and outline what could possibly be done to address these obstacles moving forward.

Cancer Metastases: So Close and So Far.

Metastases are tumors that develop at a distance from their primary origin and are responsible for the death of 90% of cancer patients. For over a century the notion of seed (migrating cells) and soil (the locus where those cells anchor) provided an accurate account of which were the protagonists in their genesis. Despite aggressive efforts to unravel the dynamics involving migrating cells and the niche in which they anchor, explanations of this process remain ill-defined and controversial. The controversy is generated by the different premises that researchers adopt to integrate the vast amount of data collected at different levels of biological organization. The so-far hegemonic theory of cancer and its metastases has been the somatic mutation theory (SMT) and a number of its variants: They consider that cancers and their metastases represent a cell-based, genetic and molecular disease. This interpretation has been challenged by the tissue organization field theory (TOFT), which considers instead that cancer is a tissue-based disease, akin to development gone awry. In this Commentary, the merits of both theories are compared now in the context of metastases. Based on the epistemological shortcomings of the SMT and the acknowledged failure of therapeutic approaches based on this theory, we conclude that TOFT explains comprehensibly carcinogenesis and the appearance of metastases.

SMT or TOFT? How the Two Main Theories of Carcinogenesis are Made (Artificially) Incompatible

The building of a global model of carcinogenesis is one of modern biology's greatest challenges. The traditional somatic mutation theory (SMT) is now supplemented by a new approach, called the Tissue Organization Field Theory (TOFT). According to TOFT, the original source of cancer is loss of tissue organization rather than genetic mutations. In this paper, we study the argumentative strategy used by the advocates of TOFT to impose their view. In particular, we criticize their claim of incompatibility used to justify the necessity to definitively reject SMT. First, we note that since it is difficult to build a non-ambiguous experimental demonstration of the superiority of TOFT, its partisans add epistemological and metaphysical arguments to the debate. This argumentative strategy allows them to defend the necessity of a paradigm shift, with TOFT superseding SMT. To do so, they introduce a notion of incompatibility, which they actually use as the Kuhnian notion of incommensurability. To justify this so-called incompatibility between the two theories of cancer, they move the debate to a metaphysical ground by assimilating the controversy to a fundamental opposition between reductionism and organicism. We show here that this argumentative strategy is specious, because it does not demonstrate clearly that TOFT is an organicist theory. Since it shares with SMT its vocabulary, its ontology and its methodology, it appears that a claim of incompatibility based on this metaphysical plan is not fully justified in the present state of the debate. We conclude that it is more cogent to argue that the two theories are compatible, both biologically and metaphysically. We propose to consider that TOFT and SMT describe two distinct and compatible causal pathways to carcinogenesis. This view is coherent with the existence of integrative approaches, and suggests that they have a higher epistemic value than the two theories taken separately.