Hypoxia may be a primary cause of uncontrollable tumor growth in cancers

Low oxygen levels in cells may be a primary cause of uncontrollable tumor growth in some cancers, according to a new University of Georgia study. The authors' findings run counter to widely accepted beliefs that genetic mutations are responsible for cancer growth.

If hypoxia, or low oxygen levels in cells, is proven to be a key driver of certain types of cancer, treatment plans for curing the malignant growth could change in significant ways, said Ying Xu, Regents-Georgia Research Alliance Eminent Scholar and professor of bioinformatics and computational biology in the Franklin College of Arts and Sciences.

The research team analyzed samples of messenger RNA data-also called transcriptomic data-from seven different cancer types in a publicly available database. They found that long-term lack of oxygen in cells may be a key driver of cancer growth. The study was published in the early online edition of the Journal of Molecular Cell Biology.

Previous studies have linked low oxygen levels in cells as a contributing factor in cancer development, but not as the driving force for cancer growth. High incidence rates of cancer around the world cannot be explained by chance genetic mutations alone, Xu said. He added that bioinformatics, which melds biology and computational science, has allowed researchers to see cancer in a new light. Gene-level mutations may give cancer cells a competitive edge over healthy cells, but the proposed new cancer growth model does not require the presence of common malfunctions such as a sudden proliferation of oncogenes, precursors to cancer cells.

"Cancer drugs try to get to the root-at the molecular level-of a particular mutation, but the cancer often bypasses it," Xu said. "So we think that possibly genetic mutations may not be the main driver of cancer."

Much of cancer research so far has focused on designing drug treatments that counteract genetic mutations associated with a particular type of cancer. In their study, the researchers analyzed data downloaded from the Stanford Microarray Database via a software program to detect abnormal gene expression patterns in seven cancers: breast, kidney, liver, lung, ovary, pancreatic and stomach. The online database allows scientists to examine information from microarray chips, which are small glass slides containing large amounts of gene material.

Xu relied on the gene HIF1A as a biomarker of the amount of molecular oxygen in a cell. All seven cancers showed increasing amounts of HIF1A, indicating decreasing oxygen levels in the cancer cells.

Low oxygen levels in a cell interrupt the activity of oxidative phosphorylation, a term for the highly efficient way that cells normally use to convert food to energy. As oxygen decreases, the cells switch to glycolysis to produce their energy units, called ATP. Glycolysis is a drastically less efficient way to obtain energy, and so the cancer cells must work even harder to obtain even more food, specifically glucose, to survive. When oxygen levels dip dangerously low, angiogenesis, or the process of creating new blood vessels, begins. The new blood vessels provide fresh oxygen, thus improving oxygen levels in the cell and tumor and slowing the cancer growth-but only temporarily.

"When a cancer cell gets more food, it grows; this makes the tumor biomass bigger and even more hypoxic. In turn, the energy-conversion efficiency goes further down, making the cells even more hungry and triggering the cells to get more food from blood circulation, creating a vicious cycle. This could be a key driver of cancer," Xu said.

Xu explained that this new cancer-growth model could help explain why many cancers become drug resistant so quickly-often within three to six months. He stressed the importance of testing the new model through future experimental cancer research. If the model holds, researchers will need to search for methods to prevent hypoxia in cells in the first place, which could result in a sea change in cancer treatment.

Comments

  1. paul hill paul hill Australia says:

    VINDICATED AT LAST.
    The first Cancer conference I attended 16 years ago was a joint Lorne (Vic Aust) AACR (American Association of Cancer Research) conference.  A lecture on the second day was about a bowel cancer in which the number one tumor repressor p53 was mutated, presumably the reason for the tumor, and it secreted a prostaglandin PGF2.  Now I knew that PGF2 constricted or narrowed blood vessels supplying the gastrointestinal tract and suddenly I had a different spin on the sequence of events.  At question time I suggested that hypoxia or oxygen starvation was the cause of the bowel cancer, not the mutations in the p53 tumor repressor. I suggested that the mutations in the p53 were a RESULT of the hypoxia. As I said this tumor secreted a prostaglandin PGF2 which is a vasoconstrictor. Adrenalin activates PGF2 in the gastro-intestinal tract in response to 'fight or flight', stress in other words. My theory went like this. Stress>adrenalin>PGF2>vasoconstriction>HYPOXIA>p53 mutation>CANCER.

    At the end of the symposium a chap approached me and suggested that this was a very interesting idea as he was working on the same cells. It turned out that he was the AACR convener. I saw him later and explained to him what is called the RAS pathway by which adrenalin works. He said, "You must be a very good biochemist" I was nonplussed by this as I didn't thing my suggestion was  anything extraordinary and I replied that "I'm not a biochemist, I'm an electronic technician, this is just a hobby for me. He looked dumbfounded as if I was taking the Mickey out of him and didn't say anything, then took off. I didn't run into him again for the rest of the Conference.

    The following year when I went to pay the Conference secretary for everything, registration, all meals and accommodation she whispered as she handed me my bag, "Don't worry Noddy, it all been taken care off" ($750}. I was gobsmacked as there was no explanation as to why. The same thing happened for the following two years the gradually tapered off. I know now. You see my answer that day involved endocrinology, biochemistry, hematology, oncology, molecular biology etc. all of which I had studied BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW THAT I WASN'T SUPPOSED TO

    All of the delegates are molecular biologist looking for GENES to blame, then design the appropriate drug. It is pure commerce and that blinds totally. This, plus Dawkinist dogma, makes it IMPOSSIBLE to understand cancer, let alone find a cure. How could the delegates POSSIBLY admit that an amateur scientist had worked something out that the entire global community of cancer researchers couldn't.  Yet taking the multidisciplinary approach made it easy, hence my amazement at the response to my suggestion.  These conferences are run by private enterprise and they are not gonna give away thousands of dollars to some amateur out the goodness of their hearts.  Now I know this sounds incredibly mean spirited, but I really am grateful.

    At the last conference I attended there were two lectures on the discovery of the HIF (hypoxia inducable factor) proteins and their associated genes.  No kudos for me, however.  If I had said “I suggested that years ago” I would have been howled down.

    Now I have to somehow get the AACR to admit that I started this in 1997.

  2. paul hill paul hill Australia says:

    There would appear to be overwhelming evidence that OXYGEN Tension is the PRIMARY differentiating factor, ie that which determines at what stage of development or differentiation (going forward) that cells are at or what stage of DEDIFFERENTIATION (going backward) that cancer cells are at.  What if, after transformation of epithelial cells, angiogenesis (the growth of blood vessels) is PROGRAMMED to lag behind tumor growth, so that as oxygen tension goes down in the tumor, it's cells increasingly DEDIFFERENTIATE, those furthest from the blood vessels and thus exposed to the LEAST oxygen tension. undergoing EMT (epithelial to mesenchymal transfer) to become cancer stem cells.  Then as these cells with a mesenchymal phenotype crawl toward the blood vessels to metastasise they are exposed to increased oxygen tension and revert to an epithelial phenotype?  The question is why all this order?  HIF (hypoxia inducable factor) proteins affect 800 genes, 1/13 of all coding genes.  That an AWFUL lot of genes for something that is supposed to be a stuff up, eh.

  3. paul hill paul hill Australia says:

    HIFs IN CANCER PROGRESSION.  (Semenza.  PDF)
    This is from an excellent paper, with several exceptions, by Jeff Semenza MD, on hypoxia.  The text in brackets is mine.  

    HIFs play key roles in many crucial aspects of cancer biology including 1. angiogenesis, (the growth of blood vessels to accommodate the growth of a tumour) 2. stem cell maintenance, (preventing the cell from fully differentiating to a mature cell going onto terminal differentiation, ie apoptosis or cell suicide) 3. metabolic reprogramming (from oxidative metabolism to non oxidative fermentation of glucose), 4. autocrine growth factor signalling (self signalling rather than paracrine {from cells next door}, juxtacrine {close by}, or endocrine {distant} signalling, 5. epithelial-mesenchymal transition or EMT (not limited to a single or monolayer of cells, eg those lining a milk duct and conversion of resultant tumor cells from an epithelial phenotype to a mesenchymal phenotype), 6. invasion (of surrounding tissue), 7.  metastasis (cells moving into nearby bloodvessels then circulating to set up a secondary tumor at a a distant site), and  8. resistance to radiation therapy and chemotherapy.

    AMAZING!!!
    ALL attributes of CANCER, built into almost every cell in response to HYPOXIA.  WHY?  Why don't cancer researchers ask this question? This and a lot of other factors suggest 'wild type' cancer.    There is one very important word glaringly missing in this paper.  DEDIFFERENTIATION of the cancer cell, going BACKWARDS, retracing the steps that it took during embryogenesis.  Older books eg my 'Ocology 1972' are full of the word.  It is not questioned.  It is a word that has fallen into almost total misuse, maybe for the very reason that is might suggest Larmarkism, ie back all the way to the germ line and THAT is heresy. (This blindness seems to coincide with the rise of Richard Dawkins).  Thus the stem cells referred to might have arisen from fully differentiated cells that have dedifferentiated in response to hypoxia.  

    Instead of the paper suggesting addressing the CAUSES of the hypoxia, ie stress and arteriosclerosis it instead suggests different sites whereby the action of HIF's might be blocked by a drug or two or three.  Still, getting rid of the stress in the US, might make these drugs, and their myriad side effects, the only option.  (I live in Australia.)

The opinions expressed here are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of News Medical.
Post a new comment
Post

While we only use edited and approved content for Azthena answers, it may on occasions provide incorrect responses. Please confirm any data provided with the related suppliers or authors. We do not provide medical advice, if you search for medical information you must always consult a medical professional before acting on any information provided.

Your questions, but not your email details will be shared with OpenAI and retained for 30 days in accordance with their privacy principles.

Please do not ask questions that use sensitive or confidential information.

Read the full Terms & Conditions.

You might also like...
Scientists uncover a previously unrecognized tumor suppression mechanism