Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37492150›Full record

ReviewEvolutionary applications2023

The paradox of cooperation among selfish cancer cells.

Jean-Pascal Capp, Frédéric Thomas, Andriy Marusyk, Antoine M Dujon, Sophie Tissot, Robert Gatenby, Benjamin Roche, Beata Ujvari, James DeGregori, Joel S Brown and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Evolutionary applications, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Socially Minded Intelligence: How Individuals, Groups, and Artificial Intelligence Can Make Each Other Smarter (or Not).Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Fraternal cooperation of hierarchical cancer parallels metazoan multicellularity and eusociality.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Cancer, collapse, and the politics of somatic evolution.Evolution, medicine, and public health · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
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

11 authors.

Jean-Pascal CappToulouse Biotechnology Institute University of Toulouse, INSA, CNRS, INRAE Toulouse France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6470-079X
Frédéric ThomasCREEC, MIVEGEC University of Montpellier, CNRS, IRD Montpellier France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2238-1978
Andriy MarusykDepartment of Cancer Physiology H Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute Tampa Florida USA.
Antoine M DujonCentre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental Sciences Deakin University Geelong Victoria Australia.
Sophie TissotDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus Aurora Colorado USA.
Robert GatenbyDepartment of Cancer Physiology H Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute Tampa Florida USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1621-1510
Benjamin RocheDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus Aurora Colorado USA.
Beata UjvariCentre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental Sciences Deakin University Geelong Victoria Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2391-2988
James DeGregoriDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus Aurora Colorado USA.
Joel S BrownDepartment of Cancer Physiology H Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute Tampa Florida USA.
Aurora M NedelcuDepartment of Biology University of New Brunswick Fredericton New Brunswick Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7517-2419

Funding

The impact of reduction of cellular senescence on age-related epigenetic heterogeneityU01CA271830 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI DEGREGORI, JAMES V, LI, SHENG · 2021 to 2025
$1.9M
NCI NIH HHS U01 CA271830
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is traditionally assumed that during cancer development, tumor cells abort their initially cooperative behavior (i.e., cheat) in favor of evolutionary strategies designed solely to enhance their own fitness (i.e., a "selfish" life style) at the expense of that of the multicellular organism. However, the growth and progress of solid tumors can also involve cooperation among these presumed selfish cells (which, by definition, should be noncooperative) and with stromal cells. The ultimate and proximate reasons behind this paradox are not fully understood. Here, in the light of current theories on the evolution of cooperation, we discuss the possible evolutionary mechanisms that could explain the apparent cooperative behaviors among selfish malignant cells. In addition to the most classical explanations for cooperation in cancer and in general (by-product mutualism, kin selection, direct reciprocity, indirect reciprocity, network reciprocity, group selection), we propose the idea that "greenbeard" effects are relevant to explaining some cooperative behaviors in cancer. Also, we discuss the possibility that malignant cooperative cells express or co-opt cooperative traits normally expressed by healthy cells. We provide examples where considerations of these processes could help understand tumorigenesis and metastasis and argue that this framework provides novel insights into cancer biology and potential strategies for cancer prevention and treatment.

Indexed as

cancercheatingcooperationgreenbeardselfishness

Identifiers

PMID37492150
PMCPMC10363833

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.