Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15824446›Full record

ReviewJournal of biosciences2005

Emergentism as a default: cancer as a problem of tissue organization.

Ana M Soto, Carlos Sonnenschein

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of biosciences, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

49 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 164 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Pancreatic cancer.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. On biological individuation.Theory in biosciences = Theorie in den Biowissenschaften · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Unexpected Discoveries Should Be Reconsidered in Science-A Look to the Past?International journal of molecular sciences · 2019
    Article
  18. Review
  19. The dualistic origin of human tumors.Seminars in cancer biology · 2018
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ana M SotoTufts University School of Medicine, 136 Harrison Ave, Boston, MA 02111, USA. ana.soto@tufts.edu
Carlos Sonnenschein
Tufts University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During the last fifty years the dominant stance in experimental biology has been reductionism. For the most part, research programs were based on the notion that genes were in 'the driver's seat' controlling the developmental program and determining normalcy and disease (genetic reductionism and genetic determinism). Philosophers were the first to realize that the belief that the Mendelian genes were reduced to DNA molecules was questionable. Soon after these pronouncements, experimental data confirmed their misgivings. The optimism of molecular biologists, fueled by early success in tackling relatively simple problems, has now been tempered by the difficulties found when attempting to understand complex biological problems. Here, we analyse experimental data that illustrate the shortcomings of this sort of reductionism. We also examine the prevailing paradigm in cancer research, the somatic mutation theory (SMT), the premises of which are: (i) cancer is derived from a single somatic cell that has accumulated multiple DNA mutations; (ii) the default state of cell proliferation in metazoa is quiescence; and (iii) cancer is a disease of cell proliferation caused by mutations in genes that control proliferation and the cell cycle. We challenge the notion that cancer is a cellular problem caused by mutated genes by assessing data gathered both from within the reductionist paradigm and from an alternative view that regards carcinogenesis as a developmental process gone awry. This alternative view, explored under the name of the tissue organization field theory (TOFT), is based on premises that place cancer in a different hierarchical level of complexity from that proposed by the SMT, namely: (i) carcinogenesis represents a problem of tissue organization comparable to organogenesis, and (ii) proliferation is the default state of all cells. We propose that the organicist view, in which the TOFT is based, is a good starting point from which to explore emergent phenomena. However, new theoretical concepts are needed in order to grapple with the apparent circular causality of complex biological phenomena in development and carcinogenesis.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalNeoplasmsAnimalsCell ProliferationGene Expression RegulationHumans

Identifiers

PMID15824446
OpenAlexW1983271173

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.